OLDER ADULTS AND SOCIAL ISOLATION—IS THERE STILL A ROLE FOR COMMUNITY DROP-IN SENIORS’ CENTRES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community drop-in centres offer social support for older adults by providing opportunities for social connection. Seniors’ centres operate according to a self-help paradigm and are cost effective, functioning largely through volunteer contributions. Seniors’ centres are found in rural communities across Canada, as well as within neighborhoods in cities. Health and social service system changes, including an emphasis on aging in place, have increased pressure on these organizations to provide more services and supports for seniors. As the population ages, there is an increased need for community-based social opportunities for older adults. As a result, seniors’ centres will require support to stay relevant, maintain existing programs, and effectively deal with the increasingly complex needs of this growing population. This presentation will discuss findings from a community-based study examining social isolation of rural older adults in Saskatchewan, Canada. Data was gathered through interviews with twenty-seven older adults; focus groups; and world cafe discussions facilitated as part of two community workshops attended by older adults and health providers. Participants in this study identified barriers to regular attendance at community seniors’ centres including the impact of exclusionary cliques, spatial and territorial claims of the membership, limited activities and hours of operation, and stigma associated with membership. These centres were also identified as an existing community resource that should be meeting social engagement needs of older adults. Participants discussed ideas to reduce stigma, increase interest and attendance, and re-establish seniors’ centres as a positive source of social identity and interaction for 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".