Understanding ageing in older Australians: The contribution of the Dynamic Analyses to Optimise Ageing (DYNOPTA) project to the evidence base and policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the Dynamic Analyses to Optimise Ageing (DYNOPTA) project and illustrate its contributions to understanding ageing through innovative methodology, and investigations on outcomes based on the project themes. DYNOPTA provides a platform and technical expertise that may be used to combine other national and international datasets. METHODS: The DYNOPTA project has pooled and harmonised data from nine Australian longitudinal studies to create the largest available longitudinal dataset (n= 50652) on ageing in Australia. RESULTS: A range of findings have resulted from the study to date, including methodological advances, prevalence rates of disease and disability, and mapping trajectories of ageing with and without increasing morbidity. DYNOPTA also forms the basis of a microsimulation model that will provide projections of future costs of disease and disability for the baby boomer cohort. CONCLUSION: DYNOPTA contributes significantly to the Australian evidence base on ageing to inform key social and health policy domains.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".