MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415521727 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-375-9-48

Do Not Forget the Oldest Old: Design Principles for the 80+

2014· article· en· W2415521727 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm W C Chan, Susan Truong, Jeffrey J. H. Cheung, Adam Dubrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetGerontologyOlder peopleResearch designHealth carePsychologyInternet privacyMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant amount of research has been conducted regarding the design of Internet applications for the elderly. Concomitantly, researchers have been applying online technologies to healthcare for older adults. The oldest old (for our purposes, defined as older adults aged 80+) are increasingly adopting the use of the Internet and likely have different needs than those who are between 55 and 80 years old. The main results from a literature review on the existing research in human factors and design for older adults is presented. These results highlight the need for more research in human factors and design in the much neglected population group, the oldest old.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207