Concept development of “Aging in place”: Application of hybrid model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".