MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303141492 · doi:10.14288/1.0093274

The locational needs of the elderly for housing

2011· article· en· W2303141492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Wayne Markoff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major concern of community planning is the integrated use of land and its implications upon people. This statement leads to the central hypothesis of this thesis: that the planned location of senior citizens' housing developments in the urban area should be based upon adequate knowledge of the needs and preferences of the elderly in regard to the total community. In an attempt to gain a total perspective, a survey of five per cent of the self contained dwelling units, specifically designed for the elderly in the city of Vancouver, is undertaken. Using multivariate contingency tabulations (MVTAB) and the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) programs, four principal variables, age, length of residence in the housing project, satisfaction with the proximity to facilities, and frequency of their use are correlated with the locational importance attributed to these selected facilities by the respondents. The results of this study indicate that more than one half of the respondents are displeased with the location of their present living quarters. Also, decisions in locating residences for the elderly must be based upon the examination of a number of facilities used by this age group, as opposed to the identification of a single facility frequented most regularly. These findings may contribute toward a more knowledgeable approach in the future site planning of housing accommodation for the aged.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207