Investigate the Situation of Satisfaction of Social Relationships and Living Environment in Elders in Nursing Homes and Elders in the Family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the satisfaction of social and living conditions of elderly people living in nursing homes, with family environment. The research method is Survey. The population included elderly residents of a nursing home comfort in Karaj (60 Persons), and the number of seniors living in families in the city of Karaj. Due to the limited number of population, census method was used to determine sample size. Also, 60 seniors who lived in the area were selected by convenience sampling method, to study more precise and similar in both groups of seniors. The questionnaire included 11 questions on a Likert spectrum of very high (5), high (4), average (3), low (2) and very low (1) was used to collect data in this study. The research tools were used by the opinions of experts, and reviewed and revised. Therefore, the validity was confirmed. Parallel methods were used to measure the reliability of research. In this case, we refer to the first 20 participants, and questions were asked, and again the test was repeated a week later, and since, to obtain general information, the information is not different from those after of a week, the questionnaire was judged as valid. To analyze the findings, we used descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage and mean) and inferential statistics (t-test) with application software spss. The results showed that, on average satisfaction (of social relations and the environment) among residents of a nursing home, are 9.56 and 14.27, respectively, and in the elderly living at home is 14.09 and 18.84 respectively. Hypothesis test results also showed that satisfaction with social relationships and environment, studied two groups of elderly unequal, and this inequality is also significant.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".