MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259401069 · doi:10.1093/cdj/bsv036

Towards age-inclusive sustainable development goals: exploring the potential role and contributions of community development

2015· article· en· W2259401069 on OpenAlexaff
Crystal Kwan, Julie Drolet

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Development Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceSociologyWork (physics)Community developmentSustainable developmentPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, societies are experiencing unprecedented shifts in their age compositions. For the first time in human history, the number of older people will surpass the number of children that are under the age of fourteen representing one of the ‘biggest social transformations’ societies will experience. The great shift in demographics demand that sustainable development efforts are age-inclusive and support the well-being of people throughout their life course – including the later life years. The purpose of this article is 2-fold. First, we delineate the linkages between the proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs) and development issues related to older persons and an ageing population, arguing that the success of the SDGs also rests on the ability to address such issues. Second, we explore community development's role in the implementation of the SDGs and addressing age-related development issues, proposing that community development's unique perspectives, values and approaches contribute to innovative development pathways conducive to age-inclusive sustainable development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.018
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Development JournalSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207