MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045862571 · doi:10.1017/s0144686x1200150x

Older adults' perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: a photovoice study

2013· article· en· W2045862571 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgeing and Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotovoiceFocus groupPerceptionParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismIdentity (music)PsychologyGeographySociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The concept of age-friendly communities has garnered international attention among researchers, policy makers and community organisations since the World Health Organization launched its Global Age-friendly Cities Project in 2006. Despite the growth of the age-friendly communities movement, few studies have examined age-friendly characteristics within different community contexts. The goal of the present study was to use a participatory methodology to explore older adults’ perceptions of age-friendliness. The study employed the photovoice technique with 30 community-based older adults in one urban community and three rural communities in the province of Manitoba, Canada. Participants were provided with cameras and took photographs to illustrate the relative age-friendliness of their communities and to generate discussion in interviews and focus groups. Themes from photographs, interviews and focus groups were organised into three broad categories: age-friendly features, contextual factors and cross-cutting themes. The age-friendly features we identified in this study generally correspond to the World Health Organization domains of age-friendliness. In addition, we identified three contextual factors that impact the experiences of older adults within their community environment: community history and identity, ageing in urban, rural and remote communities, and environmental conditions. Finally, independence, affordability and accessibility were identified as cross-cutting themes that intersect with various community features and contextual factors.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.302 · 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