The link between disability and social participation revisited: Heterogeneity by type of social participation and by socioeconomic status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While prior literature explores the impact of disability on social participation, the distinct characteristics of diverse social activities could further complicate this relationship. Furthermore, this relationship may exhibit heterogeneity when considering socioeconomic status (SES). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether the relationship between disability and social participation differs depending on the type of social participation, and to what extent this relationship is moderated by SES. METHODS: Data from seven waves of the Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing were analyzed. Various types of social participation, including socializing, leisure, volunteer, political, and religious activities, were considered. Individual fixed effects models were employed to account for unobserved individual-level heterogeneity. To investigate the potential moderating role of SES, an interaction term between disability and SES was included. RESULTS: Disability was associated with a decrease in social participation (b = -0.088). When differentiating types of social participation, the associations were negative for socializing and leisure activities (b = -0.092 and b = -0.012, respectively) and positive for volunteer activities (b = 0.012). The negative association between disability and social participation was generally stronger among higher-SES groups than lower-SES groups. Specifically, the negative association with leisure activities was more pronounced among the high-education groups. In contrast, the positive association with volunteer activities was more evident among the low-education group. CONCLUSIONS: Disability has a negative association with engagement in socializing and leisure activities and a positive association with engagement in volunteer activities. Policymakers should consider the role of SES in complicating the relationship between disability and social 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".