Creating an intergenerational university hub: Engaging older and younger users in the shaping of space and place
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
Intergenerational initiatives in post-secondary settings have demonstrated health and social benefits. However, there is a lack of detail with regard to the process by which such initiatives are conceptualized and the role of older and younger users in their development. Guided by the principles of an Age-Friendly University (AFU) alongside elements from a 'Design Thinking' approach, this project outlines the process undertaken to design a new intergenerational space to promote intergenerational connectivity. An online student survey (n = 504; 72.2% female) and focus groups were conducted with older adults (n = 22; 12 females; aged 70-95), which found similar themes across age groups with respect to: 1) past intergenerational experiences; 2) perceived benefits/challenges of accessing the space, and; 3) activity suggestions. Using these findings, alongside direct stakeholder input, Occupational Therapy students developed programming and design suggestions for the space in question aimed at strengthening interactions across age and ability. Results from this process indicate consulting with older and younger users can circumvent potential challenges and inform the design of campus-based initiatives that can promote intergenerational exchange.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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