MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional interdependence

2006· article· en· W1969162526 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAustralian Rotary HealthRotary Foundation
KeywordsResidenceContext (archaeology)Service (business)GerontologyDiscriminant function analysisPsychologyIsolation (microbiology)MedicineBusinessGeographyDemographySociologyMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The interrelationship between functional capacity, informal networks and the physical environment of the residence and residential location is used to describe age‐care service utilisation and non‐utilisation. Methods: Fifty‐two applicants for home‐care services were matched with 52 non‐applicants, and 40 applicants for day‐care services were matched with 40 non‐applicants according to age, gender, mental status, and physical functioning. Results: Discriminant Function Analyses indicated home‐care applications are related to network isolation within existing neighbourhoods and that day‐care applicant networks were insufficient to accommodate challenges presented by the immediate physical environment of the residence. The physical environment of the residence also distinguished home‐care applicants from day‐care applicants. Conclusion: The findings support the proposed model of functional interdependence that describes service utilisation and non‐utilisation as a function of the interrelationship between functional capacity and the capacity of family, friends, neighbours and communities of interest to accommodate challenges present in the elder persons residence and residential context.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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