The temporal aspects of mobility intentions: older people's reflections on present and future support arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Discourses on later-life housing and care are polarised. Ageing in place – typically in one's long-term dwelling – is often presented as the most desirable living arrangement, while moving to a congregate environment tends to be regarded as a last resort. Such polarised discourses obscure older people's experiences as they contemplate needs for housing, health and social care. To expand current understandings of mobility intentions, this paper examines ‘time work’ – or actions undertaken to exert some agency over time – as older people with chronic health conditions and disabilities navigate present and future support arrangements. Based on an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews with 22 older persons receiving home care in Ontario, Canada, I identify three themes that highlight the temporal aspects of mobility intentions: (a) maintaining continuity with the past and present, (b) constructing alternative futures and (c) facing precarity. Focusing on time work shows how people make sense of ageing in place and/or relocating not only in relation to their physical, social and psychological capacities, but also in relation to perceptions of the past, present and future. Time work, moreover, has implications for feelings of security in the present and a sense of control over the future. Based on these findings, I make suggestions for developing a comprehensive continuum of supports, so all older people can make meaningful choices concerning housing and care.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".