Perceived Community Age-friendliness is Associated With Quality of Life Among Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the positive association between perceived community age-friendliness and self-reported quality of life for older adults. A total of 171 participants, aged 77-96 years, completed a mail-in questionnaire package that included measures of health (SF-36 Physical), social participation (Social Participation Scale), community age-friendliness (Age-Friendly Survey [AFS]), and quality of life (WHO Quality of Life). Hierarchical regression models including age, gender, driving status, finances, health, social participation, and AFS scores explained 8 to 21 per cent of the variance in quality of life scores. Community age-friendliness was a statistically significant variable in all models, accounting for three to six and a half per cent of additional variance in quality of life scores. Although the proportion of variance explained by age-friendliness was small, our findings suggest that it is worthwhile to further investigate whether focused, age-friendly policies, interventions, and communities could play a role towards successful and healthy aging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".