MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979155724 · doi:10.1177/00139160121973250

The Importance of Transportation and Prioritization of Environmental Needs to Sustain Well-Being among Older Adults

2001· article· en· W1979155724 on OpenAlexaff
Yuri Cvitkovich, Andrew Wister

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrioritizationTransportation planningTransport engineeringMass transportationSample (material)Needs assessmentBusinessTransportation infrastructureEnvironmental healthPublic transportEngineeringMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the influence of transportation dependence and fulfillment of transportation needs on well-being based on a community sample ( N = 174). The majority (54.4%) of transportation-dependent participants had unfulfilled transportation needs, whereas this was the case for very few (7.1%) of those independent of transportation support. Regression analyses revealed that the transportation needs variable was statistically significant, whereas the transportation dependence factor was not. In terms of the prioritization of environmental components, elderly dependent on transportation support placed higher importance on housing than on neighborhood or community elements compared to more mobile seniors. Participants with unmet transportation needs were more likely to depend solely on family to provide transportation, whereas participants with fulfilled transportation needs were more likely to include friends or neighbors for providing transportation support. Results suggest that prioritization of needs enables seniors to maintain positive wellbeing despite experiencing functional limitations or being dependent on transportation services.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations97
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207