Aging in Place in Social Housing: A Scoping Review of Social Housing for Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to affordable housing is a rising concern, and social housing is one approach to support low-income, older renters. A scoping review was undertaken to understand the characteristics of older tenants and social housing services to identify strategies to promote aging in place. Seven peer review databases were searched to identify relevant articles. A total of 146 articles were included. Almost all examined socio-demographic and health characteristics of older tenants, while 72 per cent examined social housing services, including eligibility policies, staffing, and access to on-site services. This review points to a high vulnerability among older tenants and highlights the importance of co-locating services on-site with a tenant-facing support staff to identify vulnerable tenants and link them to services. More research on tenancy issues (e.g., unit condition, rental management) is needed to identify new opportunities for social housing landlords to help older tenants age in place.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it