MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1972383896 · doi:10.1353/cja.2006.0025

Involving the Community Elderly in the Planning and Provision of Health Services: Predictors of Volunteerism and Leadership

2006· article· en· W1972383896 on OpenAlexaff
Marita Kloseck, Richard G. Crilly, Roger C. Mannell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApartmentGerontologyCommunity healthCommunity servicePsychologySample (material)PersonalityMedicineNursingPublic healthSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapidly growing older population has led to changes in health care, including a community health movement with an emphasis on community collaboration, self-help, and capacity building. This study examined factors in the lives of older individuals that influenced their ability and willingness to participate in a health-related community-capacity-building project to help their frail, older neighbours. Using cross-sectional survey methodology, 107 volunteers who lived in a high density seniors' apartment complex known for its high health service utilization were compared with a random sample of 74 non-volunteers from the same community. Factors associated with volunteer involvement included age, activity level, functional ability, life satisfaction and certain personality characteristics. The study suggests that, within a community, the ''younger-old'' may be able to support their frail, older neighbours so that they can remain living in the community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→