Social participation and the health and well-being of Canadian seniors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social participation has been associated with health and well-being in older adults. DATA AND METHODS: Data from the 2008/2009 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)-Healthy Aging were used to examine the relationship between frequent social participation and self-perceived health, loneliness and life dissatisfaction in a sample of 16,369 people aged 65 or older. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant relationships, while adjusting for potential confounders. The mediating role of social support and the prevalence of reported barriers to greater social participation were also examined. RESULTS: An estimated 80% of seniors were frequent participants in at least one social activity. As the number of different types of frequent social activities increased, so did the strength of associations between social participation and positive self-perceived health, loneliness, and life dissatisfaction. The associations generally remained significant, but were attenuated by individual social support dimensions. The desire to be more involved in social activities was reported by 21% of senior men and 27% of senior women. INTERPRETATION: Social participation is an important correlate of health and well-being in older adults. It may be that social support gained through social contacts is as important in these associations as the number of activities in which one participates frequently.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".