Well-Being and Older People: A Review of the Literature
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
BACKGROUND: Most countries in the world are experiencing an expansion in their population of older people. As people now expect to live longer, they also seek continuing health and well-being throughout their extended old age. Occupational therapists are involved in working towards the attainment of well-being with their older clients. However, their understandings of what well-being for older people entails seems varied, as this examination of the occupational therapy and related gerontological literature reveals. RESULTS: Three key points emerge from the literature review: first, the definition of well-being is usually assumed, or is lacking in clarity, and a range of similar terms, such as happiness and life satisfaction, are used interchangeably; second, well-being has been measured in research using various scales, which may not capture the complexity of the concept; and third, the perspective of the older person is often missing in discussions of well-being. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: It is suggested that one way of moving occupational therapists' understanding of well-being forward is to conduct research into what older people themselves understand or perceive well-being to be.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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