MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729323937 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.4640

PERSPECTIVES FROM BELOW: OLDER ADULTS’ LENSES ON DISPLACEMENT AMID REVITALIZATION IN DETROIT

2017· article· en· W2729323937 on OpenAlexaff
Tam Perry, Julie Mah

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationRelocationDisplacement (psychology)Presentation (obstetrics)PerceptionLow incomeSociologyGerontologyGeographyEconomic growthPsychologyMedicineSocioeconomicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As U.S. “declining cities” undertake efforts to revitalize their inner-city neighborhoods, gentrification can result in the direct displacement of vulnerable populations, including older adults. Combining urban planning and anthropological perspectives, this presentation integrates spatial analysis of gentrification processes in Detroit, Michigan with qualitative data collected from a study of low-income seniors who were involuntarily relocated as their building went market rate (n=43). We examine how these perspectives on changes in social networks and their communities shed light on the effects of gentrification for older adults. In particular, we explore how these individual stories collectively increase our conceptual understanding of gentrification-induced displacement. Findings include 1) older adults’ challenges with information flow on moving processes and relocation options and 2) perceptions that the city’s revitalization does not include low-income seniors. The presentation will conclude with policy and practice implications for understanding the particular concerns of urban older adults experiencing displacement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207