What does community‐embedded care mean to aging‐in‐place in China? A relational approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitioning towards community‐based alternatives for service provision, health geographers have turned their gaze towards the changing meanings of place across dynamic landscapes for older people. Yet, little is known about how such a transition has manifested as a new phenomenon in a non‐western country, within a variegated geo‐historical context. Using a relational approach, this paper examines what it means to embed care services in a community for supporting aging‐in‐place through a new model, community‐based care centre (CBCC) in Beijing, China. Interview data were obtained from 47 participants (including administrative staff, service providers, and older people) to understand how stakeholders envision the transition towards the CBCC model. Our findings show that embedding CBCCs into communities is a three‐dimensional process: 1) the dynamics of locating services and socio‐relational distance in shaping a sense of place; 2) the blurring of formal and informal care relations in creating care spaces; and 3) the interweaving of collectivism and individualism in a transition from “work‐unit” to community. These interactions indicate that community‐embedded care is geographically, socially, politically, and culturally constructed and needs to be understood as dynamic and relational. Our findings suggest that the theoretical underpinnings of aging‐in‐place need to broaden to include non‐western perspectives .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".