MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313209603 · doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2150_21

Concept development of “Aging in place”: Application of hybrid model

2022· review· en· W4313209603 on OpenAlexaff
Farzaneh Barati, Homeira Khoddam, Mahnaz Modanloo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Medicine and Primary Care · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDevelopment (topology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are various methods and services which help elders protect their independency and ability and take care. Like aging in place (AIP), that is a home and community-based model. Despite its importance, this concept is still ambiguous and there is no comprehensive definition for it. This study aims to clarify and conceptualize the meaning of AIP and to develop a context-based definition. In this qualitative study, the concept was developed using a hybrid model during three theoretical phases, fieldwork and final analysis. In the theoretical phase, 30 selected articles, following a systematic search in Web of sciences-Scopus-PubMed databases using the keywords "Aging in place", "Aging at home" and "Aging in community", during 2000-2019 were screened and analyzed. After providing the working definition, the fieldwork phase directed qualitative content analysis was performed on interviews conducted with seven eligible elderly. Finally, in the final phase, after comparing the findings of the previous two phases, the final definition was presented. The results of the hybrid model extracted and identified various definitions of AIP and attributes, antecedent and consequences of AIP. attributes included; independency, belonging to the place, maintaining network, living in one's own home and community, safety, comfort, non-institutionalization, first preference, and life routines continuity. Antecedents included; health, physical environment, financial ability, socialization, information support, technology, AIP antecedent prediction, community services and transportation. Finally, Consequences included; Individual acceptability and community acceptability. Also final definition was provided. If the AIP and its related factors are known and provided so that elders can stay in their homes, then they do not have to choose a nursing home and thus stay out of the community. As a result, following the AIP, both the elderly and community will be satisfied.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Medicine and Primary CareSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207