TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERSON-CENTERED INDEX OF AGING WELL IN CANADA AND MEXICO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a growing interest in successful aging among gerontologists, there remains a lack of consensus about the definition of this concept. The most common definition was proposed by Rowe & Kahn (1997): “a low probability of disease and disease-related disability, high cognitive and physical functional capacity, and active engagement with life” (p. 433). This appears unrealistic for the majority of older adults with no more than 11.9% percent of Americans, and a mean of 8.5% of older adults across European countries being free from major chronic diseases, physical disability, cognitive impairment, and participating in social and productive activities. When asked, the perspective of older adults themselves is broader, less medical, and more positive than those of the aforementioned researchers, and not dependent upon absence of disability or chronic illness. Literature reviews of lay perspectives confirm the importance of psychosocial components such as life satisfaction and self-mastery. This symposium includes three presentations as well as a thorough introduction about different models of successful and positive aging, and their prevalence and limitations. The first presentation is a qualitative description of older adults’ perceptions of aging well in Canada. The second concerns the development of a person-centered index of aging well and description of its distribution in Canada and Mexico, while the last addresses the individual and structural determinants of aging well from the perspective of older adults. Developing comprehensive measures of positive aging processes is important for health promotion if we are to tackle outcomes that truly matter to 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".