Older Adult Learners: A Comparison of Active and Non-Active Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a 2004 follow-up study conducted in partnership with the University of Manitoba Continuing Education Division and local senior’s organizations. The partnership was formed in 2002–03 to promote applied research on lifelong learning and older adults, develop new and complement existing educational activities, and explore new program models and instructional methods to meet the educational needs of retirees. The partnership involved the develop- ment of a number of activities: University in May started in 2002, a mini medical series began in 2003, and a survey was completed in 2003 to identify the learning interests, motivations, and barriers among active older adults who participate in learning activities. The 2004 follow-up study compared barriers to participation, learning interests, and motivation to those of a similar population of older adults who held membership with the organizations but had not participated in educational activities for the past two years. The results indicate that the non-active respondents are older, less healthy, less active, less educated, and have lower incomes. Time and motivation to participate may be affected by their socioeconomic standing, health, and sense of well being; that is, their perception of their social reality. Further study to explore the definition of barriers to participation and life long learning for older adults is warranted. Recommendations for program models to facilitate participation in educational opportunities should also be explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".