Environmental Components of Mobility Disability in Community‐Living Older Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between characteristics of the physical environment and mobility disability in community-living older persons. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study conducted on three groups of community-dwelling older adults. SETTING: Community-dwelling older people in Seattle, Washington, and Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four older adults (> or =70) were recruited from two geographic sites and grouped according to level of physical function (elite, physically able, physically disabled). MEASUREMENT: Subjects reported on frequency of encounter versus avoidance of 24 features of the physical environment, grouped into eight dimensions, using a five-point ordinal scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always). Never and rarely responses were combined and coded as not encountered or not avoided, whereas the sometimes, often or always responses were combined and coded as encountered or avoided. RESULTS: Disabled older adults reported fewer encounters with and concomitantly greater avoidance of physical challenges to mobility than nondisabled older adults. However, both encounter and avoidance varied by environmental dimension. CONCLUSION: Results support the hypothesis that mobility disability results from an interaction of individual and environmental factors. Mobility disability is associated with avoidance of some, but not all, physically challenging features within the environment, suggesting that some environmental features may disable community mobility more than others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".