A scoping review of the daily mobilities of older adults in the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review examines the current state of the literature on the daily mobility patterns of older adults in the Global South to discover what is known and uncover dominant themes. We used a scoping review approach to search literature in geography and other allied disciplines that primarily focus on elderly daily travel behaviours and related studies. We included 57 papers to review and identified three dominant themes across them: trip mode choice, unmet mobility needs, and socio‐economic aspects of mobility. Results show that the elderly in the Global South, in contrast to their peers in the Global North, walk and use public transportation more frequently than personal vehicles. Some common unmet mobility needs of the elderly in the Global South include safety concerns, gender inequalities, and unequal access to public transportation. Socio‐economic aspects that influence elderly mobilities include employment status, living arrangements, caregiving relationships, and social networks. We conclude that there is a need for more mobility studies that promote the participation of older adults in the Global South and that use longitudinal, qualitative, and/or mixed method approaches. Lastly, transportation policies should address specific elderly needs and avoid “one‐size fits all” approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".