Differences in Functional Status of Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic White Elders
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few national studies have focused specifically on the functional status of Hispanic elders. We examined the prevalence of functional limitations and disabilities among Hispanic and Black elders compared to non-Hispanic Whites. METHODS: We analyzed seven measures of functional limitations, disabilities, and dependencies. Logistic regression was used to examine racial and ethnic group differences adjusting for age, gender, and education. RESULTS: Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics tended to report greater instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) dependencies and cognitive disabilities. Blacks were more likely to have activities of daily living (ADL) and IADL dependencies and require use of assistive devices compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Further adjustment for respondent status reduced differences between groups, but these models may overadjust for functional status differences. DISCUSSION: Given the projected growth of minority elders, policymakers and planners will need to consider race and ethnic differentials in functional status in determining future medical and social service needs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it