Relationships Between Neighborhood Social Capital and The Occurrence of Outdoor Falls in Canadian Older Adults: A Multilevel Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether neighborhood-level social capital is a risk factor for falls outside of the home in older adults. METHODS: Health questionnaires were completed by community-dwelling Canadians aged +65 years living in Kingston (Ontario) and St-Hyacinthe (Quebec), supplemented by neighborhood-level census data. Multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts were fit. Variations in the occurrence of falls across neighborhoods were quantified by median odds ratio and 80% interval odds ratio. RESULTS: Between-neighborhood differences explained 7% of the variance in the occurrence of falls; this variance decreased to 2% after adjustment for neighborhood-level variables. In the fully adjusted models, higher levels of social capital increased the odds of falls by almost 2 times: (odds ratio [OR] = 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.19, 3.71]). DISCUSSION: Living in neighborhoods with higher levels of social capital was associated with higher risk of falling in older adults, possibly through more involvement in social activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".