MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569064224 · doi:10.1017/s0714980816000623

The Environmental Production of Disability for Seniors with Age-Related Vision Loss

2017· article· fr· W2569064224 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen McGrath, Debbie Laliberté Rudman, Marlee M. Spafford, Barry Trentham, Jan Miller Polgar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyFocus groupSession (web analytics)PsychologyParticipant observationProduction (economics)GerontologyNarrativeSociologyMedicineBusinessSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, attention to the environmental production of disability among older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL) has been limited. This critical ethnographic study aimed to reveal the ways in which environmental barriers produced and perpetuated disability for 10 older adults with ARVL. A modified version of Carspecken's five-stage approach for critical ethnography was adopted with three methods of data collection used, including a narrative interview, a participant observation session, and a semi-structured, in-depth interview. Findings revealed how disability is shaped for older adults with ARVL when they encounter environmental features that are embedded within an ageist and disablist society. These findings are illustrated via presenting analysis of three commonly discussed activities: shopping, eating, and community mobility. Our discussion suggests that addressing the environmental production of disability requires inclusive social policy, advocacy, and a focus on education in order to develop and sustain age and low-vision-friendly environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207