Hearing the Unheard: Promoting Active and Healthy Aging With Family Leisure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Grandparents are playing an increasing role in the lives of their grandchildren. Participating in this role enriches grandparent’s well-being through feelings of enjoyment and satisfaction. Research also indicates participating in family leisure positively improves family communication, creates higher quality relationships, and enhances family cohesiveness and connectedness. However, the grandparent perspective, and their inclusion in family leisure, is often overlooked, rendering their voices invisible. Given the growing aging population, and the role grandparents play, their involvement in, and experience with, family leisure is becoming increasingly relevant. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to critically review and explore the available literature on grandparents (ages 65+) experiences with family leisure. This paper critically reflected on benefits of family leisure participation according to the World Health Organizations active aging and healthy aging ideologies. Participation in family leisure provides grandparents with opportunities for social participation, remaining active and engaged through generativity and contribution to family, as well as building, maintaining and enhancing relationships. More research that is inclusive of grandparent’s perspective of, and experience with, family leisure is needed. By taking a socioecological approach to understanding the experiences of grandparents’ participation in family leisure, clear suggestions can be made on how to support grandparent’s involvement in family leisure at the interpersonal, organizational, institutional, community, and policy levels. In particular, future actions and initiatives should simultaneously support family leisure across and within these domains. Promoting family leisure is one way to support active and healthy aging not only among older adults, but among all individuals.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".