Stimulating Research to Enhance Aging in Place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults may benefit from interventions to successfully age in place. Research has an opportunity to test interventions and implementation strategies to fulfill the needs of older adults through collective evidence building. The purpose of this article is to describe the proceedings of the American Occupational Therapy Foundation (AOTF) 2019 Planning Grant Collective and describe the areas of research that were identified as critical. The AOTF convened scientists with expertise in the area of aging in place to catalyze research on aging in place for older adults. Four priority areas in the aging in place literature were highlighted: (a) identification of factors that support aging in place, (b) classification of processes by which family members and care partners are included in aging in place efforts, (c) categorization of technology supporting older adults to age in place, and (d) development of science that clarifies implementation of evidence-based practice.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".