Scoping study of definitions of social participation: update and co-construction of an interdisciplinary consensual definition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: considering the importance of social participation for quality of life and active ageing in older adults, it is an important target of social and health professionals' interventions. A previous review of definitions of social participation in older adults included articles up to 2009; new publications and changes in the social context (e.g. social media and the COVID-19 pandemic) justify continuing this work. OBJECTIVE: this paper provides an updated inventory and synthesis of definitions of social participation in older adults. Based on a critical review by content experts and knowledge users, a consensual definition is proposed. METHODS: using a scoping study framework, four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, AgeLine, PsycInfo) were searched with relevant keywords. Fifty-four new definitions were identified. Using content analysis, definitions were deconstructed as a function of who, how, what, where, with whom, when, and why dimensions. RESULTS: social participation definitions mostly focused on people's involvement in activities providing interactions with others in society or the community. According to this new synthesis and input from content experts and knowledge users, social participation can be defined as a person's involvement in activities providing interactions with others in community life and in important shared spaces, evolving according to available time and resources, and based on the societal context and what individuals want and is meaningful to them. CONCLUSION: a single definition may facilitate the study of active ageing and the contribution of older adults to society, socioeconomic and personal development, benefits for older adults and society, self-actualisation and goal attainment.
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 | 0.218 | 0.421 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.075 | 0.069 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".