An Empirical Comparison of Different Models of Active Aging in Canada: The International Mobility in Aging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Active aging is a concept that lacks consensus. The WHO defines it as a holistic concept that encompasses the overall health, participation, and security of older adults. Fernández-Ballesteros and colleagues propose a similar concept but omit security and include mood and cognitive function. To date, researchers attempting to validate conceptual models of active aging have obtained mixed results. The goal of this study was to examine the validity of existing models of active aging with epidemiological data from Canada. Methods: The WHO model of active aging and the psychological model of active aging developed by Fernández-Ballesteros and colleagues were tested with confirmatory factor analysis. The data used included 799 community-dwelling older adults between 65 and 74 years old, recruited from the patient lists of family physicians in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec and Kingston, Ontario. Results: Neither model could be validated in the sample of Canadian older adults. Although a concept of healthy aging can be modeled adequately, social participation and security did not fit a latent factor model. A simple binary index indicated that 27% of older adults in the sample did not meet the active aging criteria proposed by the WHO. Implications: Our results suggest that active aging might represent a human rights policy orientation rather than an empirical measurement tool to guide research among older adult populations. Binary indexes of active aging may serve to highlight what remains to be improved about the health, participation, and security of growing populations of older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".