MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120334759 · doi:10.1177/0733464813496164

What Community Characteristics Help or Hinder Rural Communities in Becoming Age-Friendly? Perspectives From a Canadian Prairie Province

2013· article· en· W2120334759 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Qualitative researchAging in placeEconomic growthGeographySocioeconomicsPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceGerontologySociologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-friendly initiatives are increasingly promoted as a policy solution to healthy aging, The primary objective of this article was to examine older adults' and key stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that either help or hinder a community from becoming age-friendly in the context of rural Manitoba, a Canadian prairie province. Twenty-four older adults and 17 key informants completed a qualitative interview. The findings show that contextual factors including size, location, demographic composition, ability to secure investments, and leadership influence rural communities' ability to become age-friendly. Government must consider the challenges these communities face in becoming more age-friendly and develop strategies to support communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · 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