MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090625587 · doi:10.1080/07370010802017034

Informal Social Support Networks and the Maintenance of Voluntary Driving Cessation By Older Rural Women

2008· article· en· W2090625587 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie E. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Health Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportFeelingSocial network (sociolinguistics)GerontologyPsychologyMental healthMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologySocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventy-five rural women over the age of 77 participated in this study to describe the impact of informal social support on the maintenance of voluntary driving cessation. After being screened for mental status, they completed a demographic questionnaire and the Lubben Social Network Scale (2006) Lubben, J. E. 2006. “Assessing social networks among elderly populations.”. In Handbook of geriatric assessment, 4th ed. Edited by: Gallo, J. J., Bogner, H. R., Fulmer, T. and Paveza, G. J. 245Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. [Google Scholar]. They also participated in a semistructured interview designed to probe factors leading to driving cessation and the ability to maintain it. Findings suggest that most participants stopped driving due to a decline in physical function and/or involvement in a nonfatal accident. Adequate support from family and friends was critical to the maintenance of driving cessation. Those with a limited informal social network resumed driving due to the lack of transportation, feelings of insecurity and fear for their survival, and the desire to assist friends who were less fortunate. Implications for community health nurses working in rural areas are discussed.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations51
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Health NursingSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207