Influence of cohousing communities on social determinants of health in later life: a scoping review protocol
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
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to chart the extent and type of literature available worldwide on cohousing communities and older adults' social determinants of health, to identify and categorize key evidence on this topic, and to highlight gaps to guide further research. INTRODUCTION: The rapidly aging population in many industrialized countries has precipitated the development of housing alternatives, such as cohousing communities, to better address older adults' housing and social needs. There is mounting evidence that living in a cohousing community has many positive outcomes for this population; however, the scope and size of this body of research are unknown. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will assess studies conducted in all countries and territories focusing on people aged 60 and older living in cohousing communities. It will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies published from 1960 to 2022. METHODS: The databases to be searched are APA PsycArticles (EBSCO), Cairn.info, Campbell Collaboration, CINAHL (EBSCO), Érudit, Google Scholar, JBI, PubMed, SAGE Journals Online, Scopus, Science Direct (Elsevier), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest). Two independent reviewers will review the titles and abstracts of potential studies against the inclusion criteria for the review followed by an assessment of the full text of selected citations. Data will then be extracted using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. The findings will be presented graphically and include tables with a narrative summary organized by relevant geographic areas.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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