The Differential Importance of Personal and Environmental Resources to Older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S'appuyant sur le système social de production et sur la théorie du capital social, les auteurs questionnent l'importance spécifique des ressources personnelles et environnementales sur la satisfaction, en utilisant le temps, la santé, la situation financière et les activités principales comme variables. Les données sur les Canadiens et les Canadiennes âgés de 60 ans et plus (n=5,986) ayant participéà l'Enquête sociale générale — engagement social (cycle 17) ont été analysées. Les personnes âgées canadiennes ont été très satisfaites de l'utilisation de leur temps, mais moins de leur situation financière. Alors que les limitations dues à la santé et le sentiment de maîtrise ont été importants dans les quatre domaines, l'environnement physique et les activités communautaires ont eu de plus en plus d'effets idiosyncrasiques et spécifiques aux domaines. Les auteurs analysent en outre la signification de leurs résultats en se servant de la documentation sur la résilience, de la spécificité fonctionnelle des relations sociales et de l'utilisation maximale des ressources. Drawing on social productive function and social capital theory, we examine the differential importance of personal and environmental resources to the satisfaction with time use, health, finances, and main activities. Data pertaining to Canadians aged 60 and above (n=5,986) participating in the General Social Survey (Cycle 17) were analyzed. Canadian seniors were most satisfied with their time use and least with their finances. While health limitations and the sense of mastery were important to all four domains, the physical environment and civic activities yielded increasingly idiosyncratic, domain‐specific effects. We further explore the significance of our findings using literature pertaining to resilience, the functional specificity of social relationships, and the maximum utility of resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".