Social participation and barriers to community activities among middle‐aged and older <scp>Canadians</scp>: Differences and similarities according to gender and age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study described and compared participation with community activities and perceived barriers among middle-aged and older Canadians by gender and age group (45-64, 65-74, 75-84, ≥85 years). METHOD: Using the cross-sectional 2008-2009 Canadian Community Health Survey - Healthy Aging, we considered the frequency of involvement in eight community activities and the presence of 10 perceived personal and environmental barriers. RESULTS: Although frequency was globally similar for women and men (15.2 vs. 14.5 activities per month; P < 0.01), adults aged 65-74 years had higher participation (16.0 activities per month) than adults aged 45-64, 75-84 and ≥85 years (P < 0.01). Barriers showed wider gender and age gaps than participation to community activities. Notably, health condition limitations were the most reported barrier aged ≥65 years, and environmental barriers were generally greater for women than men, particularly transportation problems (P < 0.01), except ≥85 years. CONCLUSION: The results highlight that further study of social participation and barriers among older adults must consider gender and age differences. The differences are important to consider for designing population interventions aiming at improving social participation among aging Canadians. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 77-84.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".