MORE THAN JUST A ROOM: RESULTS FROM AN INTERGENERATIONAL HOME SHARING PROGRAM IN TORONTO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Older adults prefer to live in their own homes for as long as possible — to ‘age in place’ — but for myriad reasons may be unable to do so. To address this, a number of housing alternatives have been explored, including homesharing, or homeshare, an exchange-based shared housing approach with the potential to empower older adults to age in place by enabling them to obtain additional income, companionship, and assistance with completing household tasks in exchange for renting out a room in their home. An intergenerational homesharing pilot program was launched in Toronto, matching older adults (55+) with postsecondary students. With limited research in the area, a mixed methods research study was embedded within the pilot project with the goals of: 1) conducting a scoping review to map and synthesize the literature related to outcomes of homeshare participation for this population, 2) conducting in-depth interviews with homeshare participants (N=22) to learn about their experiences, and 3) conduct a full evaluation and exit survey to better understand the implications of the project. Results were organized around the following themes: (1) benefits and challenges of participating in homeshare for older adults; (2) intergenerational engagement as social exchange; and (3) the key role of agency facilitation as a determinant of the experience of homesharing for older adults. Results spoke to the unique benefits and challenges of participating in homeshare for this population. Findings were used to derive implications for policy and practice, as well as highlight areas for future research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".