MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Addressing Social Isolation To Improve the Health of Older Adults: A Rapid Review

2019· review· en· W2912165696 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Veazie, J Gilbert, Kara Winchell, Robin Paynter, Jeanne‐Marie Guise

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsIsolation (microbiology)Social isolationGerontologyPsychologyData scienceMedicineComputer scienceBiologyPsychiatryBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of Review To rapidly evaluate the effect of interventions targeting social isolation/loneliness in community-dwelling older adults (60 years and older) on outcomes of social isolation/loneliness, health and health care utilization.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations109
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207