MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017125467 · doi:10.1177/0898264309333313

The Use of Mobility Devices Among Institutionalized Older Adults

2009· article· en· W2017125467 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairSocioeconomic statusOddsGerontologySocial mobilityMultinomial logistic regressionSample (material)PsychologyMedicineLogistic regressionEnvironmental healthPopulationComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to examine the demographic, health, and social characteristics of mobility device users in long-term care settings. METHODS: Data were used from a recently institutionalized sample of older adults from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the factors associated with the use of different mobility devices (cane, walker, or wheelchair). RESULTS: Over 70% used mobility aids (over 50% used a wheelchair). Mobility limitations were strongly associated with the use of mobility devices. However, among those with mobility limitations, educational resources reduced the odds of wheelchair use. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with findings from the community setting, need factors are strongly associated with the use of mobility aids in institutions. However, socioeconomic resources may provide older adults with alternate ways to manage mobility limitations in institutional settings.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.326 · 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