MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200187675 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.1129

Aging in the Right Place? Photovoice With Older Adults Residing in Shelters During COVID-19

2021· article· en· W4200187675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vibha Kaushik, Jill Hoselton, Christine A. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceEmpowermentAging in placeParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PerceptionGerontologySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aging in the right place (AIRP) involves supporting older adults to live as long as possible in their homes and communities, recognizing that where an older person lives impacts their ability to age optimally and must match their unique lifestyles and vulnerabilities. Photovoice, a participatory action research strategy, allows people to document their experiences through photography, promoting critical dialogue about issues such as AIRP and rights-based housing. This presentation highlights the concept of AIRP from the perspectives of a diverse group of older adults living in promising practices shelters in Vancouver, Montreal, and Calgary, Canada using photovoice. Findings indicate that the process promoted a sense of empowerment among participants. Insights about older adults’ perceptions of AIRP residing in shelters to best meet their intersectional identities, housing, and support needs will be shared. Findings inform policy initiatives that promote AIRP and the right to adequate housing for older adults experiencing homelessness.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→