J.3. Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
0,5 km were reported by 38% of women in 2000, but only 29% in year 2011.The trend was similar in men.Poor vision was 50% less common in year 2011 than in 2000, but hearing difficulties were equally common at both time points.A larger proportion of older persons performed well in cognitive tests in 2011 than in 2000.The proportion of those reporting difficulties in basic activities in daily living declined.Most of the changes in social functioning were positive, but some negative trends were also noted: a smaller proportion of older adults reported not having a close relationship or not getting practical help and participation in various activities increased whereas meeting friends decreased.Conclusions Functioning of Finnish older population has markedly improved from 2000 to 2011.This has partly balanced the growing need for treatment and care induced by the aging of the population.The favorable development implies that an increasing proportion of the elderly is able to live at home independently and participate in various activities and voluntary work, and take care of relatives.Maintaining the positive development will require intensive efforts to improve the determinants of good functioning, including good living conditions, adequate treatment and care as well as healthy behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.440 | 0.317 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".