Social capital of older persons living at a residential facility in Durban, South Africa : primary health / community health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older persons (60+) are subject to psychological and physical changes that may strain social capital, which is a strong contributor to wellbeing. The purpose of the study was to describe the individual social capital of older persons residing in a purposively selected residential facility in Durban, South Africa, in order to identify possible ways of promoting the health of older persons through increasing social connectedness.The research design was a non-experimental quantitative descriptive survey using self-administered questionnaires for residents (N = 103) who met the inclusion criteria. A researchers' developed questionnaire with a social capital section framed within, and the Canadian Policy Research Initiative framework, was used for data collection. This article focuses on four social capital questions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Indigenous Questionnaire and the OSLO-3 Social Support Scale. Network dynamics of trust, social support, and self-efficacy were relatively dominant in primary social networks. Despite low density of the primary social network, it was an asset to be confided in, build self-efficacy, and ultimately social capital. A network approach in building social capital buffers against loneliness which can arise from social disconnectedness. Face-to-face contact with a primary network has strong relevance and warrants consideration when planning a health promotion intervention.
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) | 0.001 | 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".