MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4308956726 · doi:10.1017/s0714980822000332

Access to Community Support Services among Older Adults in Social Housing in Ontario

2022· article· en· W4308956726 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine Sheppard, Matthew Yau, Claire Semple, Candy Lee, Jocelyn Charles, Andrea Austen, Sander L. Hitzig

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreToronto Metropolitan UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEnablingSocial WelfareAging in placeBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Community serviceService (business)Public housingAged careIntervention (counseling)Social supportEconomic growthGerontologyPublic relationsNursingMarketingMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community support services are an integral enabler of aging in place. In social housing, older adult tenants struggle to access these services because of the siloed nature of housing and health services. This study examined the provision of government-funded community support services to 83 seniors' social housing buildings in Toronto, Ontario. Although there were 56 different agencies operating within the buildings, only about one third of older tenants were actually receiving services. There was a subset of services that were available in more than 80 per cent of the buildings, and the most widely accessed services were food supports, crisis intervention, transportation, caregiver support, and hearing/vision care. There were also many cases in which multiple agencies offered duplicative services within the same building, suggesting that there are opportunities for improving service coordination. Practice recommendations for increasing access to community support services among low-income older adults in social housing are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→