Development and Validation of an Indicator of Support forCommunity Residing Older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of social support is an important risk factor for disability, psychiatric illness, cognitive impairment, institutionalization, and mortality. Social networks are also important for the caregiving and emotional support that elderly people need to allow them to function well in the community. This article details the development and validation of an index of the instrumental support available to older community residents in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). Preliminary item review, internal consistency, and exploratory factor analysis were carried out on a random half of the sample. The second half of the sample was used for cross-validation; internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis, and item response theory analysis were carried out. The final scale had six items; alpha internal consistency was 0.76 and IRT reliability was 0.85. A one-factor solution was most easily interpretable. IRT analyses showed that the scale was homogeneous and that most items were highly discriminating. The instrumental support scale also had a high correlation with size of social network; it was related to marital status and gender, and predicted institutionalization between the two phases of the study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".