MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781924392 · doi:10.1017/s071498081700054x

Social Isolation in Later Life: Extending the Conversation

2018· review· fr· W2781924392 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Weldrick, Amanda Grenier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2018
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyEthnologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Avec le vieillissement de la population canadienne, l’isolement social des personnes âgées constitue une préoccupation croissante et une priorité d’action au niveau national. Bien que les risques individuels de l’isolement social des personnes âgées et les conséquences négatives sur leur santé soient relativement bien connus, les impacts des trajectoires de vie et des expériences collectives sont rarement considérés. Les définitions actuelles et les réponses à cet isolement social se basent sur des programmes qui tendent à privilégier les approches individuelles. Ici nous proposons que la discussion soit élargie afin de considérer les aspects sociaux et culturels de l’isolement social des personnes âgées. En particulier, nous suggérons que les définitions et les approches prennent en compte trois dimensions : les facteurs temporels, les facteurs spatiaux et les liens entre l’isolement social et l’exclusion. Ainsi, nous pensons qu’il serait possible d’élaborer une approche d’intervention plus inclusive face à l’isolement social des personnes âgées, et de développer les capacités en ce sens chez un plus grand nombre d’aînés, en vue de pouvoir répondre, en particulier, aux besoins des personnes âgées les plus vulnérables ou marginalisées.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207