MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298358148 · doi:10.46692/9781847422729.004

Urban ageing

2009· other· en· W4298358148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgeingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The previous chapter reviewed the last 40 years of empirical literature related to our understanding of the relationship between the older person and their environment. While this yielded a breadth of knowledge, there remain some substantial shortfalls within empirical knowledge that require urgent focus, particularly set against a context of other trends, in particular population ageing and urbanisation. The focus of this chapter is on examining ageing in urban environments and what this means for the person–environmental fit. The first section of the chapter briefly examines trends in both population ageing and urbanisation. The next section discusses factors present in urban spaces that might support and hinder ageing, and what is currently known about older people ageing in urban centres. Critically, the chapter raises the question of the current ‘optimality’ of urban neighbourhoods to support the health and well-being of those ageing in urban centres. Trends in urban ageing Population ageing and urbanization are two global trends that together comprise major forces shaping the 21st century. (WHO, 2007, p 6) Trends in population ageing and urbanisation make the understanding of urban ageing highly relevant to the agenda on sustainable development. Urban development has been described as ‘one of the most powerful of the forces which are shaping the geography of the contemporary world’ (Clark, 2000, p 15); transforming the lifestyles of almost half of the world's population. A recent report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA, 2007) predicted that by 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world's population – 3.3 billion people – would live in urban areas, and by 2030 this figure is expected to be almost five billion (see Figure 3.1). In Europe, almost 75% of the population already live in urban areas (for example, 80% in the UK, 77% in France and Spain, 73% in Germany and 68% in Italy). Canada and the US have similar percentages of the population living in urban areas, 81% and 79% (2008 figures). There has also been a rise in megacities – cities with a population of 10 million or more – and this is expected to rise further in the coming years. The United Nations predicts that by 2015, 23 cities will be defined as megacities, of which most will be in the developing world (UNFPA, 2007); and by 2030, three out of every five people will live in urban areas (WHO, 2007).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1500.038

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207