More than a meeting: identifying the needs of the community-based seniors’ services sector as providers of health promotion services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many economically developed countries have seen a decline in publicly funded community programming. Within this context, community-based seniors' service (CBSS) organizations have been increasingly tasked to deliver programs to support the health and wellbeing of older citizens (e.g., home support, physical activity programs, and chronic disease management education). The primary objective of this study was to capture of the current needs of CBSS leaders in British Columbia, Canada, who attended a seminal event in the CBSS sector's development-the inaugural Summit on Aging. RESULTS: Our evaluation of the Summit included: pre/post Summit surveys (N = 79/76), ethnographic observations, and follow-up interviews (n = 22). Our detailed evaluation plan may inform others undertaking similar data collection; the most informative results were derived from the follow-up interviews and our findings suggest that interviews may be sufficient for similar evaluations. Summit delegates identified key opportunities to strengthen the CBSS as a sector, including enhanced collaboration; improved mechanisms that foster connecting and collaborating; and more resources, including training and qualified staff, to increase their capacity to deliver community-based health services. These findings echo work already completed in the community-based health promotion sector.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".