MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980345709 · doi:10.14283/jfa.2016.115

Relationship between Fear of Falling and Preceived Difficulty with Grocery Shopping.

2017· article· en· W2980345709 on OpenAlexaff
Shanthi Johnson, KERRYELLEN McLEOD

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFear of fallingBalance (ability)Falling (accident)MedicineActivities of daily livingGerontologyGrocery storePsychological interventionInjury preventionGrocery shoppingPoison controlPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthAdvertisingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fear of falling is associated with self-imposed restrictions of basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL/IADL), leading greater risk for functional decline and falls. The inability to independently grocery shop, a food-related IADL, negatively affects nutritional status and survival among seniors. Thus, this study examined the relationship between the fear of falling and difficulty with grocery shopping among seniors (n=98, mean age=82, 83% female), taking into account their functional capacity. Demographic profile, eating problems, physical fitness (mobility, balance, endurance, leg strength), and fear of falling (balance confidence, falls efficacy) were measured. Fifty-six percent of participants reported difficulty with grocery shopping. Those who reported difficulty had significantly lower scores for dynamic balance, balance confidence and fall efficacy compared to those who did not. This study revealed a relationship between the fear of falling and perceived difficulty with grocery shopping. Interventions should address fear of falling among the frail seniors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOlder Adults Driving Studies→French-language works237,207→