OASIS STUDY: ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF OLDER ADULTS LIVING IN FIVE AGING IN PLACE COMMUNITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The Oasis program is a model of aging-in-place that targets social connectedness, physical activity and nutritional wellness through member-driven programming. Oasis, first established in an apartment building in Kingston Ontario, has recently been expanded to 6 new communities across Ontario in a participatory action research study. The purpose of this poster is to describe the physical activity patterns of five unique Oasis communities (Original and 4 new) and explore the impact of personal, environmental, and Oasis program characteristics on these patterns. Methods: Participants were recruited from Oasis communities in 3 market-priced apartiments, 1 subsidized apartment, and 1 mobile-home park. Participants wore the ActivPAL3 activity monitor for 7 days. Mobility was measured using the Timed Up and Go. Programming was described by type (e.g. social, exercise, nutrition), frequency, and timing of programming. Results: Participants included 70 older adults aged 79.8(min 62, max 97), community mean age ranged from 66.2 – 83.5 years. TUG score 11.6(SD 4.9) (community range 10.5 to 13.7 s). Average daily step count was 5800(SD 2835) steps, with communities ranging from 4685 to 6472 steps/day. An average of 604(community range 236 – 1056) of steps were taken at a healthy pace(100 steps/min). Only 27% of participants took the recommended 7000 steps/day (with community rates ranging from 9.5% to 37.5%). Conclusions: Older adults within these aging in place communities demonstrated low to moderate levels of physical activity, with activity patterns differing across communities. Impact of community make up and characteristics on activity patterns will be presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".