MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082524532 · doi:10.1177/0733464813510063

Targeting Socially Isolated Older Adults

2013· article· en· W2082524532 on OpenAlexafffund
Nancy E. Newall, Verena Menec

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGerontologyPsychologyTelephone interviewPopulationSample (material)Telephone callMedicineEnvironmental healthSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Seniors Centre Without Walls (SCWOW) program provides free social and educational programming for older adults via telephone. The target population for SCWOW is socially isolated older adults, a hard to reach population. The aim of this process evaluation was to examine whether SCWOW was reaching its target population and to gather participant feedback about program implementation and the perceived satisfaction and impact of the program. Telephone interviews were conducted with 26 participants (92% females; aged 57-85 years). Forty-two percent of the sample was socially isolated and more than half reported being lonely. Participants reported having no difficulty using the telephone system. On average, participants were very satisfied with the program and reported that SCWOW had several positive effects (e.g., connecting to the larger community, affecting mental well-being). Importantly, no barriers to participation were identified. The study suggests that telephone-based programs can successfully reach socially isolated older adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207