MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052360779 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p2

Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults

2012· review· en· W2052360779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miranda A. Farage, Kenneth W. Miller, Funmi Ajayi, Deborah Hutchins

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Balance (ability)CognitionPsychologySimplicityGerontologyPopulationFunction (biology)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global population is aging. In many industrial countries, almost one in five people are over age 65. As people age, gradual changes ensue in vision, hearing, balance, coordination, and memory. Products, communication materials, and the physical environment must be thoughtfully designed to meet the needs of people of all ages. This article summarizes normal changes in sensory function, mobility, balance, memory, and attention that occur with age. It presents practical guidelines that allow design professionals to accommodate these changes and better meet the needs of older adults. Designing for older adults is inclusive design: it accommodates a range of physical and cognitive abilities and promotes simplicity, flexibility, and ease of use for people of any age.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations227
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207