Bibliographic record
Abstract
This profile is predicated on the assumptions of the diversity of the older population living in rural and remote Canada and the diversity of the communities themselves. The profile is constructed around four major themes: being older and living in rural and remote parts of Canada; the challenges and barriers to living in rural and remote areas; social inclusion, engagement, and ageism; and food and income security. The concluding section emphasizes directions that need to be taken and knowledge gaps. Being older and living in rural and remote parts of Canada The people in general and the older population in particular living in rural and remote communities share a set of characteristics that distinguish them from the urban population of Canada (DesMeules et al, 2011). There are higher proportions of low-income people and older people, higher proportions of people and older people with less education, as well as higher rates of smoking, obesity, and mortality. On a more positive note, it is argued that people in general and older people in particular have a stronger sense of community belonging than their counterparts living in urban Canada (DesMeules et al, 2011). Focusing only on older people, Keating and Eales (2011) paint a more nuanced picture of older people living in rural and remote communities contrasting ‘community active and stoic seniors’ who have the resources to age well and ‘marginalized seniors’ whose health is poor, who live on low incomes, and have poor social connections. A fourth group, ‘frail seniors’, are mainly described in terms of their status and higher service needs. Looking back to the 1990s, Joseph and Cloutier-Fisher (2005) characterized older people living in small-town and rural Canada as ‘vulnerable people living in vulnerable places’. Their perspective was coloured not only by demographic changes, but by the loss of services and their consolidation in larger urban places. Consolidation of services was intended to address the fragmentation of services and to save money. Davenport et al (2009) characterized communities as being either ‘service rich’ or ‘service poor’ in Atlantic Canada, where rural communities were mainly identified as service poor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".