Using Travel Diaries to Examine the Extent to Which Older Adult Centres Are a Focal Point for Recreation and Social Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to better understand the extent to which older adult centres are a focal point for recreation and social activities for their members. Travel diaries completed by 261 members of 12 older adult centres across Ontario provided comprehensive and real-time (24-hour) data over two consecutive weeks concerning time away from home, trip purposes, and modes of travel. The data showed that nearly one-third of their trips included a stop at their older adult centre. Three-quarters also went to other community venues over the study period, possibly to access amenities (e.g., pools) not available at their centre. Notwithstanding, their local older adult centre was still a focal point in out-of-home travel, particularly for potentially more vulnerable older adults, including those who were non-drivers, had less education, and felt lonelier. The diaries also substantiated the importance of time spent socializing with peers and staff at the centre, apart from formal program participation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".