Social participation of seniors: Applying the Framework of Occupational Justice for healthy ageing and a new approach to policymaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social participation is associated with positive health outcomes for seniors. However, not all seniors may be able to achieve a satisfactory level of participation. Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the social participation of seniors within the Framework of Occupational Justice (FOJ) to promote an occupational perspective to policymaking. Methods: This study employed a deductive and inductive thematic content analysis of seniors’ responses from focus group data that looked at seniors’ experiences with social participation in Montreal, Canada. Twelve focus groups for a total of 111 participants from diverse backgrounds were analyzed. Results: The analysis revealed structural and contextual factors that can enable or prevent social participation. Potential enablers to social participation include the presence of individual community support workers, the design and accessibility of the physical environment, and programs tailored to seniors’ needs. Underlying occupational determinants identified as barriers are related to cultural values and policies tied to ageism. Inductive reasoning also yielded new, neutral, occupational outcomes for the FOJ. Conclusion: When applying the FOJ to a diverse population, there is the possibility of a spectrum of occupational outcomes, which shifts the perspective from the polarity of rights and injustices currently presented in the FOJ. In terms of social policy, social participation is viewed as a right and that public policy can work towards promoting this right.
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 | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".