MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031240585 · doi:10.5172/conu.2013.45.2.244

Residents’ perceptions and experiences of social interaction and participation in leisure activities in residential aged care

2013· article· en· W2031240585 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Thomas, Bev OʼConnell, Cadeyrn J. Gaskin

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Nurse · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAged carePerceptionSocial careResidential careNursingPsychologyGerontologyProject commissioningPublishingSociologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social interaction and participation in leisure activities are positively related to the health and well-being of elderly people. The main focus of this exploratory study was to investigate elderly peoples' perceptions and experiences of social interaction and leisure activities living in a residential aged care (RAC) facility. Six residents were interviewed. Themes emerging from discussions about their social interactions included: importance of family, fostering friendships with fellow residents, placement at dining room tables, multiple communication methods, and minimal social isolation and boredom. Excursions away from the RAC facility were favourite activities. Participants commonly were involved in leisure activities to be socially connected. Poor health, family, the RAC facility, staffing, transportation, and geography influenced their social interaction and participation in leisure activities. The use of new technologies and creative problem solving with staff are ways in which residents could enhance their social lives and remain engaged in leisure activities.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 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

Citations47
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary NurseSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207