MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899847229 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.556

ASSESSING THE RURAL BUILT ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT OLDER ADULTS MOBILITY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

2018· article· en· W2899847229 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bonnie Jeffery, Nazeem Muhajarine, P. A. Hackett

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilt environmentAuditAffect (linguistics)Aging in placeFocus groupAdaptation (eye)Social isolationBusinessGerontologyPsychologyGeographyMedicineEngineeringMarketingCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The built environment plays an important role in supporting older adults to successfully age in place. The land-use patterns, transportation systems and community design elements that together comprise the built environment all directly affect how older adults move and interact within a community. Older adults who live in built environments with physical barriers are less likely to leave their homes and therefore are more at risk of social isolation, reduced physical activity, and increased mobility issues which can affect their ability to successfully age in place. To date, most of the research on the influence of the built environment has focussed primarily on urban settings with little understanding of the application to older adults in rural settings. Our presentation will focus on the adaptation of community audit instruments to assess the built environment in four rural communities with small populations in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. We will present findings from a study where we used three methods to assess the rural built environment: community audits using the Healthy Aging Network (HAN) environmental audit tool, local policy assessments using the Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) tool and focus groups with community dwelling older adults. We will discuss our methods of adapting these instruments for use in small rural communities, will highlight our use of mapping technology to summarize findings and discuss the contribution of these findings to local community governments who are formalizing their age-friendly initiatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207