A QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF OLDER ADULT PERSPECTIVES ON HEALTHY AGING IN THE CIRCUMPOLAR NORTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cross-cultural research has shown marked variation in health outcomes across the world’s older adult populations. Indeed, older adults in the Circumpolar North experience a variety of health disparities. Because aging is a biological process rooted in sociocultural context, there exists great variation in the ways older adults define and experience healthy, or “successful,” aging in their communities. The aim of this analysis was to synthesize qualitative research among older residents (aged 50+ years) in the Circumpolar North to identify a definition of healthy aging common in the region. The Circumpolar North is defined as the Arctic and subarctic regions of Canada, Finland, Denmark, Greenland & the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. A thorough review was conducted across a variety of academic search databases for peer-reviewed, qualitative studies conducted among community-dwelling older adults. The search strategy initially identified 194 articles; 22 articles met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were coded and analyzed using Grounded Theory to examine underlying themes of healthy aging in the Circumpolar North. The findings reveal the importance older adults place on incorporating social, environmental, and personal resilience factors into multidimensional models of healthy aging. This research also highlights the need for increased translational research with populations in the Circumpolar North that are under-represented in the gerontological literature.
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 | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".