Reconceptualising the person– environment relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This chapter examines how the findings gained from researching ‘place and ageing’ in deprived neighbourhoods build on and progress our knowledge in the field of environmental gerontology. This chapter brings together and summarises the findings from 26 interviews in Manchester and 26 interviews in Vancouver – as expressed through eight case studies, 44 short biographies (Appendices A and B) and three participants’ photographs and descriptive text. It proposes a reconceptualisation of factors important in the person–environment relationship; such as the consideration of temporal dimensions (for example, past, present and future) and intervening variables (for example, such as religion and spirituality, and lifecourse). The chapter also explores issues around comparative research, factors associated with ‘place and ageing’, outcome variables (for example, quality of life and identity), and methodological and analytical aspects of the research. The final section summarises the study's contribution to the advancement of knowledge on place and ageing. Cross-national research – empirical findings The strength and uniqueness of this study is, in part, based on the comparative analysis of older people living in deprived urban neighbourhoods in England and Canada. Although there has been a growth in comparative research in recent years, as illustrated and discussed in Chapter One, there remains a paucity of comparative research within the environmental gerontology literature. Added to this, there is a lack of research within England and Canada investigating concepts of place and ageing, particularly in deprived urban neighbourhoods. Therefore, this research is in the unique position of being able to add to scientific knowledge not only in general, but also cross-nationally and within each country. Findings from 26 interviews in Manchester and 26 in Vancouver were compared cross-nationally in relation to three factors. These were: • environmental categories – comfort, management and distress; • factors underlying place and ageing; • the relationship between place and ageing and well-being. Analysis of the interviews across these three factors reveals significant similarity of findings within and across countries. Findings revealed similar factors underlying older people's experience of place and ageing, and in the relationship between place and ageing and reports of well-being (that is, quality of life and identity). Each of these factors will be discussed later.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".