MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026211910 · doi:10.1353/cja.2005.0028

Falls and Fear of Falling among Community-Dwelling Seniors: The Dynamic Tension between Exercising Precaution and Striving for Independence

2004· article· en· W2026211910 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Ward‐Griffin, Sandra Hobson, Pauline Melles, Marita Kloseck, Anthony A. Vandervoort, Richard Crilly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFear of fallingFalling (accident)Independence (probability theory)GerontologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the everyday experience of community-dwelling elders, with particular attention to seniors' perceptions of safety, fear of falling, independence, and quality of life. We also aimed to identify contextual factors that influence the health of elders who had fallen and/or had a fear of falling. Data from in-depth interviews with a purposeful sample (n = 9) of elders were analysed using interpretative analysis procedures. Both individual and team analysis was undertaken until interpretations of the experiences of the participants were inductively developed and crystallized into a holistic interpretation of the participants' shared experience. The holistic experience was comprised of two opposing, dynamic life forces: exercising precaution and striving for independence. Within each life force, participants used five major strategies that simultaneously constrained and expanded their life space. Health-promoting practice and policy implications, as well as areas for further research, are discussed.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207