MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965558851 · doi:10.1108/14608790200500015

The influence of the family on the future housing preferences of seniors in Canada

2005· article· en· W1965558851 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori E. Weeks, Olive Branton, Thomy Nilsson

Bibliographic record

VenueHousing Care and Support · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)GerontologyPsychologyFamily supportSociologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We addressed how family factors influenced the future housing preferences of seniors. A total of 100 adults ranging in age from 65 to 98 participated in face‐to‐face interviews. The vast majority of the respondents had no plans to move, and most wanted to remain living in close proximity to family. The results showed several linkages between family support currently provided and the future housing preferences of seniors. The results of this study have implications for developing programmes and services to support seniors and their family members to accommodate ageing in place. Further research is needed to understand more completely how family factors influence seniors' housing preferences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHousing Care and SupportSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207