MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ageing in North America: Canada and the United States

2017· book-chapter· en· W4240206871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eileen M. Crimmins, Hiram Beltrán‐Sánchez, Lauren E. Brown, Yongjie Yon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulation ageingAgeingSocioeconomic statusHealth carePopulationFace (sociological concept)GeographyGerontologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthDevelopment economicsSociologyMedicineDemographyEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada and the United States, while similar in many ways, differ somewhat in age structures, life expectancies, policies relevant to an ageing population, and the challenges they face with future ageing. Canada is the older and longest-lived. Both countries have made changes in their healthcare systems to provide access to healthcare across their populations. Socioeconomic differences in the ageing process are an issue in both of these countries. In this chapter, we first outline the demographic conditions relevant to the ageing population in these countries, then examine health issues relevant to the ageing population including a number of dimensions of health and healthcare. We then lay out specific socioeconomic and cultural challenges related to an ageing population in each country and how these are likely to be dealt with in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207