What's in a name? Similarities and differences in international terms and meanings for older peoples' housing with services
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
ABSTRACT The diversity of terms and meanings relating to housing with services for older people confounds systematic analysis, especially in international comparative research. This paper presents an analysis of over 90 terms identified in literature from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand reporting types of housing with services under the umbrella of ‘service integrated housing’ (SIH), defined as all forms of accommodation built specifically for older people in which the housing provider takes responsibility for delivery of one or more types of support and care services. A small number of generic terms covering housing for people in later life, home and community care, and institutional care are reviewed first to define the scope of SIH. Review of the remainder identifies different terms applied to similar types of SIH, similar terms applied to different types, and different terms that distinguish different types. Terms are grouped into those covering SIH focused on lifestyle and recreation, those offering only support services, and those offering care as well as support. Considerable commonality is found in underlying forms of SIH, and common themes emerge in discussion of drivers of growth and diversification, formal policies and programmes, and symbolic meanings. In establishing more commonality than difference, clarification of terminology advances policy debate, programme development, research and knowledge transfer within and between countries.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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