Community Participation of Older Adults with Disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Contemporary discourses on ageing promote active participation as an ideal framework from which to encourage and support older people's health, independence and life satisfaction. But is such a vision of participation meaningful and/or accessible to all older adults? This paper explores how people ageing with disabilities understand the notion of social participation, juxtaposing their accounts with key trends found in ageing policy. Insights from individual interviews and a collective writing project conducted with older adults in Quebec who were living with lifelong disabilities (mobility, vision or hearing) reveal the tensions that exist between policy guidelines and participant narratives. Results highlight three crucial conditions with regard to the community participation of people ageing with disabilities: self‐determination , creating an inclusive environment and identity integration . Together, these themes reveal that ageing policies on participation should be revisited in order to improve opportunities for meaningful involvement. Our discussion suggests the need to widen the definition of participation so that it can be used to validate a variety of life options, guarantee structural and cultural access to participative settings and offer social spaces capable of supporting evolving identities, lived experiences and the collective circumstances of ageing with disabilities. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it