The ‘Double Risk’ of Aging: Examining Vulnerability and (Un)supportive Built Environments in Canadian Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The confluence of rapid population aging and the overwhelming desire of older adults to age in place begs the question: Do our cities support the health and well-being of aging populations? Using a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood approach, this macro-scale investigation explores the "double risk" that many older adults live with - the potential of being disadvantaged by socio-demographic risk factors (being older, living alone, low income) and by living in an unsupportive built environment. It is an integration of what we know about supportive built form for older adults and applies this knowledge to Canadian cities, using a spectrum approach to classifying built environments. We found that most older adults with socio-demographic risk factors are living in unsupportive built environments in Canada; however, the distribution between built environments along the spectrum and between municipalities reveals a variegated landscape of double risk. Previous research suggests that unsupportive built environments can be supplemented with services, small-scale improvements in the built environment, and larger-scale retrofitting of neighbourhoods. Since the spatial distribution of vulnerability varies greatly within the 33 Canadian cities analysed, it highlights the need for this kind of inquiry to target age-friendly policy interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".