Community-based Lifelong Learning for Promoting Health in Older Adults: A Qualitative Analysis of a Continuing Education Program for Seniors in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This case study of the Seniors Daytime Program, a continuing education program run by the Toronto District School Board, examines the roles and benefits of community-based lifelong learning for the post-work population and, in particular, seniors at risk from the perspectives of adult education and health promotion. Population Aging and Lifelong Learning Like many countries, Canada is aging. The portion of seniors (aged 65 and over), which comprised about 13 % of the population in 2001, will nearly double by 2031 when the last wave of baby boomers retires (Health Canada, 2002). Older Canadians live relatively healthy lives, with 77 % describing their general health in positive terms. Yet, 71 % of the same group also report chronic pain or some long-term activity restrictions (Statistics Canada, 1999). These figures imply that coping with chronic health problems and functional limitations to maintain the quality of life is a concern for many older Canadians. Given the aging population, the growing social concerns about the rising cost of health care, and the shifting trend to community care with its emphasis on self-reliance, it is important to develop a new perspective which views learning
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".