Lifelong Educational Practices and Resources in Enabling Health Literacy Among Older Adults
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
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to examine the role of lifelong educational and learning practices and resources in enabling health literacy. METHOD: A subsample of older adults (n = 2,979) derived from the 2003 seven country IALSS (Canadian survey) was used. An expanded Andersen-Newman model that included lifelong learning enabling factors was used to develop predictors of health literacy. RESULTS: The formal education, lifelong and lifewide learning enabling factors exhibited the most robust associations with health literacy. These included education level; self-study in the form of reading manuals, reference books and journals; computer/Internet use, use of the library; leisure reading of books; reading letters, notes and e-mails; and volunteerism. DISCUSSION: Findings are discussed in relation to the development and maintenance of health literacy over the life course. Programs and policies that encourage lifelong and lifewide educational resources and practices by older persons are needed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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