Spousal Bereavement as a Triggering Mechanism for a Loss of Residential Independence Among Canadian Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is well recognized that unmarried seniors are more likely to experience instability in their living arrangements than their married counterparts, few studies have tested whether spousal bereavement in and of itself operates as a triggering mechanism for a subsequent loss of residential independence. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether Canadian seniors are at greatest risk for institutionalization and coresidence with others in the period immediately following spousal bereavement and whether this risk declines as acute responses to the crisis of bereavement become tempered with time. Data come from six waves of the Canadian National Population Health Survey (1994-2004), with the sample restricted to married or cohabiting adults who, at initial interview, were 65 years of age or older and living in a couple-only household ( n = 1,082). Results from a competing risks analysis for time to first event, where first event was either moving into an institution or sharing a residence with others, confirm the time-dependent consequences of spousal bereavement. Relative to seniors whose spouse was still living 10 years later, respondents who experienced the death of a spouse or partner between 1994 and 2004 were at significantly greater risk for both institutionalization and coresidence in the period immediately following bereavement, with risk attenuating over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".