The housing and support needs of visually impaired adults living in England today
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports findings from two linked projects. The first examined the housing, support and care needs of 400 visually impaired people aged 55 and over. The second looked at the housing and support needs of 121 adults aged 18-55. Only one half of younger informants and just over half of older informants had made physical alterations to their home to manage with impaired sight. A quarter of older people and three in ten younger people made no use whatsoever of aids or assistive technology. A lack of basic information prevented both groups from taking informed decisions about obtaining and adapting their accommodation. Older visually impaired people are the larger group numerically within society, and we found serious under provision of housing and services to ameliorate the problems of chronic ill health, social isolation and anxiety that many faced on a daily basis. Yet the difficulties faced by younger people were if anything even greater, especially if they had additional disabilities, were female or came from an ethnic minority. These findings challenge housing and service providers to devise innovative, person-centred and cost-effective solutions that improve the quality of life for adults of all ages with impaired vision.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".