Vulnerability, Volunteerism, and Age-Friendly Communities: Placing Rural Northern Communities into Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volunteerism is considered to be one aspect of age-friendly communities. To be age-friendly is to indicate that the community is committed to promoting the well-being and contributions of older people. Rural northern communities can be vulnerable to external forces, and this vulnerability impacts volunteerism. Using a focused ethnographic approach, the purpose of this study was to examine aging in place in a rural northern community in northern Ontario in a state of economic transition and instability. Interviews were conducted with 84 participants, including older adults, health and social care providers, and other community members. There were several themes emerging associated with the idea of volunteering, including a lack of volunteers, volunteer burnout, community attitudes, a lack of newcomer participation, and a transitory lifestyle. These themes were discussed against the backdrop of a community in a state of economic instability, and reflected the demographic, economic, and social changes that the community had experienced over the last few years. The findings suggest that when examining the aspect of volunteerism within the age-friendly framework, the context of the community has to be taken into consideration.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".