Understanding Belonging and Community Connection for Seniors Living in the Suburbs
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
While much has been explored about notions of both place and belonging in regard to community health of various populations, little is known of the phenomena specific to suburban dwelling seniors. More and more seniors are living in suburban neighborhoods, communities that do not tend well to the belonging needs of this population. This qualitative study sought the perspectives of suburban dwelling seniors about the role of belonging and community connection to their health and wellbeing. Informed by strengths-based approaches to community development and health, the study engaged people from three community groups of older adults in a Canadian suburb (a seniors’ recreational/social group, and two cultural groups) in group interviews concerning the topic. Discoveries included an understanding of belonging as both personal and social, and identification of facilitators and barriers to belonging at personal and systemic levels. Belonging was experienced through connection, contribution and cooperation. These findings are important to shape community engagement with seniors and to inform decision-making and program developments in areas of recreation, leisure, health services, community policing, city planning and other services.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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