Older Adults with Hoarding Behaviour Aging in Place: Looking to a Collaborative Community-Based Planning Approach for Solutions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on and synthesizes new research that examines how a collaborative community response can promote successful aging in place for older adults with hoarding behaviour. Through interviews with older adults with hoarding behaviour, who used a particular community support and a focus group interview with members of the community collaborative that directed supports for this population, our findings suggest that there were valuable outcomes for both groups. These older adults with hoarding behaviour were able to remain in their own homes, their safety was enhanced, their sense of isolation was minimized, empowerment was fostered, and they gained valuable insight into their behaviour. The members of the community collaborative were able to access the expertise of other professionals, maximize their own expertise, and they generated an enhanced understanding of the experience of older adults living with hoarding behaviour in Edmonton. This study is a significant addition to the much too sparse literature about the community planning needs of older adults with hoarding behaviour. It offers knowledge that is integral to theories and principles of better aging in place but attempts to translate this into practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it