MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109103283 · doi:10.1177/0013916505277605

Informal Social Support and Use of a Specialized Transportation System by Chronically Ill Older Adults

2006· article· en· W2109103283 on OpenAlexaff
Glenyth E. Nasvadi, Andrew Wister

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelpfulnessSocial supportMarital statusGerontologyContext (archaeology)Metropolitan areaService (business)Logistic regressionPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineSocial psychologyBusinessMarketingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging is commonly associated with an increase in chronic disease and disability, affecting access to transportation. This study examines factors that contribute to the decision to use Handy Dart transportation (a handicap-specialized service) among 869 elderly, chronically ill residents of a metropolitan region in British Columbia. Drawing on Chappell’s complementary model of support, the authors hypothesized that informal social support will be positively associated with specialized transportation service use. The authors employ the Andersen-Newman model of health use to help organize the other expected predictors. Results of logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of regular social support, a positive attitude about Handy Dart helpfulness, being retired, disability because of arthritis, and perceived ill health were the strongest predictors of use. Age, gender, marital status, knowledge, and number of comorbid illnesses did not predict use of the service. The results are discussed within the context of changing needs for specialized transportation services.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207