Key focal areas for bridging the fields of aging and disability: findings from the growing older with a disability conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based upon research presented at the 2011 Festival of International Conferences on Caregiving, Disability, Aging and Technology (FICCDAT)-and specifically the Growing Older with a Disability (GOWD) conference, this paper identifies areas where bridging building between aging and disability is needed to support older adults aging into or with disabilities. Five focal areas emerged: 1) The Need to Forward Bridging Between Aging and Disability Sectors, 2) Theoretical Frameworks of Individual Aging that Facilitate Bridging, 3) Bridging through Consumer Participation and Involvement, 4) Bridging Through Knowledge Transfer and 5) Bridging Opportunities in Long-Term Supports and Services and Assistive Technologies. Discussion of themes is provided within both international and Canadian contexts, reflecting the interests of FICCDAT and GOWD organizers in discussing how to improve bridging in Canada. Findings from this report form the basis of the Toronto Declaration on Bridging Aging and Disability Policy, Practice, and Research.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".