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

Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults

2012· review· en· W2052360779 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.125
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