MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3128344140 · doi:10.7939/r3-a6y8-fd59

The Role of Community Completeness in Older Adults Experiences of Health and Wellbeing: A Photovoice Study

2020· article· en· W3128344140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcus Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceGerontologyPsychologyMedicineSociologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the role of community completeness in the health and wellbeing of older adults. Community completeness is a concept commonly used in urban planning policies by cities, however utilizations and definitions vary between locations. As the older adult population in Canada and around the world grows, it is important to understand older adults’ neighbourhood experiences, especially in a time of aging in place policy often encompassing concepts of community completeness. The main objectives of the study were to 1) explore the experiences of older adults within their neighbourhood in the context of their health and wellbeing, and 2) to create a complete community framework that can be used to promote health and wellbeing. A photovoice methodology was utilized to explore the neighborhood-based experiences of participants living in Edmonton, Alberta. These experiences were then examined using Amartya Sen’s capability perspective. The thesis begins by examining the academic literature on the associations between the built environment and health and wellbeing. In addition, planning policies from four Canadian cities are also examined. Four main pathways linking the built environment to health and wellbeing of older adults are identified: neighbourhood character, greenspace, walkability, and foodscapes. Utilizing the capability approach, various affordances were identified to propose a complete communities framework that is centered on health and wellbeing. These pathways include explorations of built environment components, as well as individual experiences such as happiness or fear which can influence health and wellbeing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta Library→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→