Becoming homebound by choice and constraint: a mixed-methods look into ageing and mobility transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the transition of mobility practices and more specifically how certain older individuals experience patterns of Déprises leading them to adopt a more homebound lifestyle. As individuals age and advance in their life cycle, their capacities for mobility are prone to change, along with their lifestyles. Sometimes these changes are voluntary and done in a proactive manner, sometimes they are the product of external events. In some instances, following a transition period, these changes can result in a loss of mobility capacities, a continuation or reconfiguration of activities, or sometimes even an extension of mobility capacities, and therefore autonomy. As shown in earlier research, this process takes place in ways that are as diverse as the life course of each individual. This diversity, however, is still underrepresented in research, where older adults are often studied as a block according to their age (65+, 75+). This paper aims to delve deeper into the events and process leading to transition in mobility capacities among diverse profiles of older adults living in urban and suburban environments. To do so, the paper first presents results from statistical analysis showing how mobility practices can differ in older adults of different age groups representing different moments of the life cycle. Focusing afterward on a specific profile (the Stay-at-home), the article uses interview data to illustrate how diverse events, decisions and adaptation strategies led diverse individuals to become more homebound over the course of ageing. The article exposes a diversity of situations among Stay-at-home individuals, with transitions that are chosen or suffered. We conclude on strategies this plurality of Stay-at-home use to maintain their mobility and how we can support them to help them keep their autonomy.
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 | 0.036 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".