MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295678436 · doi:10.32481/djph.2022.08.007

Aging in Place:

2022· article· en· W4295678436 on OpenAlex
Maggie Ratnayake, Shay Lukas, Sachi Brathwaite, Jessica Neave, Harshitha Henry

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDelaware Journal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHand and Upper Limb Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAging in placeDignityGerontologyHealthy agingPsychologySuccessful agingSocial supportMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While aging in place is preferred by the vast majority of adults and can bring a host of psychological and physical benefits, older adults require community support in order to age in place safely and with dignity. In this commentary, we review the demographic changes and characteristics of older adults nationally and in Delaware, highlight some of the benefits and challenges to aging in place, and discuss the individual and system-level strategies that are needed to help older adults successfully age in place. Finally, we provide an overview of one creative solution that addresses instrumental and social needs among individuals aging in place with chronic illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.326 · 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