MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804468963 · doi:10.1177/0164027518774805

Relocation and Network Turnover in Later Life: How Distance Moved and Functional Health Are Linked to a Changing Social Convoy

2018· article· en· W2804468963 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip J. Badawy, Markus H. Schafer, Haosen Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRelocationTurnoverSocial distanceDemographic economicsBusinessComputer scienceMedicineEconomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life-course transitions among older adults often produce a reshuffling of social network members. Moving is a common experience for U.S. seniors, but relatively little is known about how core networks change amid the relocation process. Drawing on longitudinal data from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, the present study examines how late-life moving is associated with changes to network size and the loss and gain of particular network members. We find that when older adults undertake a long-distance move, they tend to add more family to their core network-yet this is moderated by their initial level of functional health. Long-distance moves are also associated with losing nonkin members from the core network. These empirical patterns are interpreted in light of developmental perspectives on late-life relocation, continuity theory, and the social convoy model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch on AgingSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207