MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731280808 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.5158

COMMUNITY ENGAGED MODELS TO ENHANCE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF HEALTH IN OLDER ADULTS

2017· article· en· W2731280808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karim M. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)GerontologyPsychologyMeaning (existential)Affect (linguistics)PopulationScale (ratio)Presentation (obstetrics)Psychological interventionAging in placeMedicineGeographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, older adults will soon outnumber children, and there will be a greater increase in the proportion of adults over age 80 than any other age group. Maintaining one’s mobility is considered the best guarantee of older adults being able to cope and remain in their homes and communities. There is clear evidence that neighbourhoods, communities and social networks where older adults live, directly affect their mobility and health. In this panel presentation, we draw on our community based research across four interconnected programs of inquiry to 1: highlight the need to move beyond the ‘instrumental/functional’ understanding of mobility to explore what conveys meaning for older people, particularly in public urban environments; 2: describe the physical activity implications of a newly developed Greenway among older adults living in a highly walkable urban environment; 3: emphasize the importance of evaluating implementation of a physical activity intervention delivered at-scale across BC, and 4: describe the impact of a scaled-up physical activity intervention on dimensions of older adults’ physical and social health.This session will be of particular interest to those who work with an aging population and social and urban planners who work across the age spectrum to design inclusive communities for people of all abilities. To animate our discussion we will use a series of short (2–3 minute) video vignettes (produced by our team) to foreground the voices and experiences of older adults.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207