MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983804628 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igz038.2957

HEALTHY RESIDENCE IN RICHARDSVILLE: A PHOTOVOICE PROJECT ON AGING IN PLACE

2019· article· en· W2983804628 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terri Lewinson, Gaynell M. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlantaRentingAging in placeEconomic rentResidenceApartmentPhotovoiceLiberian dollarUnit (ring theory)Property valueGeographyQuarter (Canadian coin)Real estateGerontologySocioeconomicsEconomic growthSociologyBusinessPsychologyMedicineEngineeringDemographyEconomicsMetropolitan areaFinanceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on AARP’s domains of community livability, this presentation presents findings from a photovoice study of residents in an urban community in Atlanta, Georgia. Richardsville (pseudonym) is one of many communities in Atlanta’s inner city that has transformed from a blighted, long-derelict area to a hotbed of high rent apartment units, mixed with quarter-million-dollar-plus homes. With property values skyrocketing and rents soaring, it has becoming increasingly difficult for longtime, older residents of this historically African-American community to remain in the vicinity. Richardsville Senior Residences, an affordable rental unit, was built to provide housing for a mix of incomes and ages and retain longtime residents in Atlanta’s neighborhoods. Therefore, from this qualitative study, we share about residents’ motivations for moving into Richardsville Senior Residences and their perceived livability of the environment that influence healthy aging in place.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207