Editorial: Canadian Association on Gerontology Policy Statement on Health Promotion for Individual Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Health promotion, currently defined as "the process of enabling individuals and communities to increase control over and improve their health" (Ottawa Charter, Epp,1986; W.H.O., 1984, p. 3) presents particular challenges for those involved in health policy, planning, and delivery of services for seniors.One challenge relates to the fact that over 80 per cent of seniors have chronic medical conditions (National Advisory Council on Aging, 1989).Functional disabilities and illnesses in old age are often managed as acute medical problems, not as persistent life challenges which call for continuous attention to promoting health and preventing disease.Consequently, older persons easily become "patients" dependent upon professional management of care, a relationship which contributes to low self-esteem and lack of confidence, further reinforced by ageism and asymmetrical power relations between seniors and their professional caregivers (MeWilliam, Belle Brown, Carmichael, & Lehman, 1994).Scope: Although up to 8 per cent of seniors receive help with at least one activity, including a variety of instrumental activities of daily living (National Advisory Council on Aging, 1993), only 20 per cent of seniors report major limitations to their activities and 64 per cent rate their health as "good" to "excellent" for their age (National Advisory Council on Aging, 1993).The vast majority of seniors with chronic illness have the psychological determination
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.021 |
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".