MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964338138 · doi:10.1017/s0714980819000345

The Association between Public Transportation and Social Isolation in Older Adults: A Scoping Review of the Literature

2019· review· en· W2964338138 on OpenAlexafffund
Madeline Lamanna, Christopher Klinger, Anna Liu, Raza Mirza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSocial isolationPublic transportIsolation (microbiology)Inclusion (mineral)Public policyRural areaBusinessHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlGerontologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthTransport engineeringEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inadequate public transportation was recognized as a barrier to social participation, especially for older adults in rural communities and with mobility issues. Older adults will not benefit from opportunities to engage with their community and maintain social networks if they are unable to access them. The purpose of this scoping review was to make recommendations for further research and to summarize areas for improvement identified in the literature that will aid in the development of public transportation initiatives that can better address social isolation for older adults (≥ 55 years of age). Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria, identifying themes of access to rural public transportation, issues with public transportation, and mobility. In practice, older adults need to prepare for driving cessation and mobility transitions; sound policy requires input to tailor transportation initiatives to an aging population, and future research should explore older adults' transportation needs and potential solutions in urban and rural communities.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations82
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207