Bibliographic record
Abstract
O envelhecimento activo tem sido abordado a partir de duas perspectivas bem distintas. Uma perspectiva que faz da participação económica das pessoas mais velhas a pedra angular para a própria sustentabilidade financeira do Sistema de Segurança Social e para o cumprimento da Estratégia Europeia para o Emprego (EEE) e uma outra perspectiva que faz da “actividade” no envelhecimento o elemento estruturante para a ruptura face ao envelhecimento-incapacidade. Ambas as perspectivas incorrem em contradições e ambas exigem políticas sociais coerentes e sustentadas. O envelhecimento activo, do ponto de vista da saúde, requer medidas inovadoras que promovam a participação e a optimização de estilos de vida mais activos e saudáveis que contribuam para a qualidade de vida das pessoas que envelhecem. O envelhecimento activo, como instrumento de combate às saídas precoces do mercado de trabalho, não pode ser dissociável de um conjunto de medidas que promovam a conciliação entre vida familiar e profissional.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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.
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".