Aging in the Right Place: A Conceptual Framework for Housing Insecure Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emerging research has highlighted the significance of aging in the right place (AIRP) by recognizing that secure and optimal housing should support an individual’s unique vulnerabilities and lifestyles. Existing literature, however, has yet to consider what it means for older people experiencing homelessness and/or housing insecurity to age-in-the-right-place. In order to address this knowledge gap, a review of person-environment fit models for older people and other relevant literature was conducted to determine critical identifiers of AIRP for housing insecure older people. Findings from this literature review were then refined in collaboration with interdisciplinary scholars and community partners to establish a conceptual framework. This paper presents the resulting conceptual framework and outlines the key indicators of AIRP relevant to housing insecure older people. The proposed framework provides a practical and meaningful contribution to the literature which can be used to promote housing security among individuals often excluded from existing aging-in-place models.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".