Growing old in a new estate: establishing new social networks in retirement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The benefits of a strong proximal social network for people as they advance in age are well documented, but the continuation or development of social networks may be challenged when people relocate to a new home on retirement. This paper explores the personal network development of older residents who have moved to a new suburban (but not age-specific) residential development in a general urban setting. Drawing on a case study of a new outer-suburban ‘master planned estate’ in Brisbane, Queensland, the findings from interviews with 51 older residents and participant observations of a community group are presented. The study suggests that a traditional ideal of unreflexive community of place was an unreliable source of durable social bonds in contemporary fragmented and mobile social conditions, where the proximity of family members, durability of tenure and strong neighbourly ties are not inevitable. One successful resolution was found in a group of older residents who through exercising agency had joined a group the sole focus of which was social companionship. The theoretical bases of this type of group are discussed and its relevance is examined for retirees who have chosen to live in a residential environment for lifestyle and amenity reasons, away from their lifelong social networks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".