Examining an occupational perspective in a rural <scp>C</scp>anadian age‐friendly consultation process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The age-friendly community movement is a community-level approach to promoting seniors' health that has yet to be thoroughly examined from an occupational perspective. Through the application of the Canadian Practice Process Framework to an age-friendly consultation process, the authors examined how age-friendly community consultations may provide strategies for occupational therapists to strengthen their work with communities. METHODS: A consultation with a rural Canadian community was guided by the Age-Friendly Rural/Remote Communities Initiative. Focus groups were held with 35 older adults to identify age-friendly features of the community. Twenty key informants who provide services to seniors were also interviewed individually. Following the community consultation, we examined the relationship between the age-friendly community consultation process and occupational therapy community development practice processes using the Canadian Practice Process Framework. RESULTS: The steps of the consultation process paralleled the occupational therapy practice process, with occupational issues implicitly identified in the age-friendly consultation. The age-friendly consultation process emphasised the importance of collaborative partnerships and the need for occupational therapists to adopt a facilitative rather than leadership role. Skills that enable occupation were used throughout this age-friendly consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the process of this age-friendly community consultation has relevance to occupational therapy theory and practice, and can provide a useful framework for collaborative consultative processes when working with communities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".