Social Governance and Sustainable Development in Elderly Services: Innovative Models, Strategies, and Stakeholder Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The global demographic shift towards an aging population has created an urgent need for high-quality elderly care services. This study focuses on “elder services” within the framework of sustainable development, addressing seniors with intensive care needs and independent seniors. Methods—Social Governance: To understand the social governance aspects, we employ a qualitative methodology, analyzing policy documents, novel care methods, and successful case studies. Sustainable Development: Simultaneously, our study investigates sustainable development, examining the methods used to promote sustainability in geriatric care. Research Question: Our research question centers on identifying strategies that foster inclusivity and sustainability in elder services, considering diverse needs, housing, community involvement, and the role of technology. Results: We identified innovative models aimed at improving the well-being of older individuals, including community-driven initiatives, technology-assisted solutions, holistic wellness programs, intergenerational interaction programs, and the integration of traditional and modern care methods. We explored stakeholder perspectives, providing insights into the complexities of implementing effective elderly care solutions. Our study evaluated the efficiency of diversified social governance models in geriatric care, highlighting their benefits compared to traditional models. We presented specific concerns and suggestions from stakeholders regarding sustainable development in geriatric care. Discussion: Our findings underscored the importance of collaboration among various stakeholders to enhance elderly care. Our study summarizes key insights from current policies and anticipated future trajectories in geriatric care, providing a foundation for developing sustainable elderly care facilities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".