Re-framing mobility in older adults: an adapted comprehensive conceptual framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is widespread acceptance regarding the importance of mobility in older adults, there have been few attempts to bridge disciplines and move beyond the predominant focus on functional aspects of mobility. In this article, we present an adapted mobility framework with the goal of continued development to acknowledge the subjective and temporal elements of movement in order to comprehensively conceptualize mobility. The adapted framework of mobility offers a physiological, subjective, contextual and temporal approach, that provides a more comprehensive conceptualization of the nature and processes of older adults' mobility. The use of a sliding scale in our framework reveals the dynamic, fluid and experiential nature of mobility by analyzing factors within and between people and their environments, over time. Adopting this framework reframes how mobility can be conceptualized and approached across a potential range of users and user groups. Our framework presents theoretical concepts that can be transported and tested in research studies. Our framework can also be used in clinical or community settings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it