Delivery of Community Support Services for Older Adults in Social Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Community support services are an integral component of aging in place. In social housing, older adult tenants struggle to access these services due to the siloed nature of housing and health services. This study aims to describe the relationship between community support services and social housing for older adults and examine ways to optimize delivery. Data on government-funded community support services delivered to 74 seniors’ social housing buildings in Toronto, Ontario was analyzed. Neighbourhood profile data for each building was also collected, and correlational analyses were used to examine the link between neighbourhood characteristics and service delivery. Fifty-six community agencies provided 5,976 units of services across 17 service categories, most commonly mental health supports, case management and congregate dining. On average, each building was supported by nine agencies that provided 80 units of service across 10 service categories. Buildings in neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of low-income older adults had more agencies providing on-site services (r = .275, p < .05), while those in neighbourhoods with more immigrants (r = -.417, p < .01), non-English speakers (r = -.325, p < .01), and visible minorities (r = -.381, p < .01) received fewer services. Findings point to a lack of coordination between service providers, with multiple agencies offering duplicative services within the same building. Vulnerable seniors from equity-seeking groups, including those who do not speak English and recent immigrants, may be excluded from many services, and future service delivery for seniors should strive to address disparities in availability and access.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".