MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012022184 · doi:10.1080/02763893.2013.813428

Influence of Late Life Stressors on the Decisions of Older Women to Relocate into Congregate Senior Housing

2013· article· en· W2012022184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heidi H. Ewen, Jasleen K. Chahal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Housing for the Elderly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsRelocationStressorPsychosocialQuarter (Canadian coin)GerontologyAffect (linguistics)Sample (material)PsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Late-life stressors often require individuals to make substantial alterations in behavior and lifestyle and can affect their overall health and well-being Relocation is a significant life stress regardless of age. The primary aim of this study is to elucidate the push-pull factors associated with moving into congregate senior housing. The secondary aim is to investigate the decision-making processes and stresses associated with moving into a congregate living environment. Interviews were conducted with 26 women who were new residents in congregate senior housing. Relocation, as expected, was considered to be stressful although individual differences were found among perceptions of relocation stresses. Women who had made the decision to relocate on their own showed evidence of better psychosocial well-being at the time of the move. One-quarter of the sample chose to move in order to provide care to another person. As the options for senior housing continue to evolve and the numbers of adults reaching advanced age continue to increase, it is important to understand the factors that contribute to successful adaptation. This knowledge will enable facility administrators to implement programs and procedures to assist incoming residents with acclimating to their new homes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Housing for the ElderlySame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207