Meanings of Aging in the Right Place for Older Clients of a Temporary Housing Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The concept of aging in place is acknowledged as the preference of older adults, yet without consideration of the intersections of diversity in later life, it is critiqued as unattainable, unrealistic, or even undesirable. This gave rise to the exploration of what is needed to age in the right place (AIRP). Building on existing research, we examined the meaning of AIRP to older adults (aged 55+ years) who have experienced homelessness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted photovoice interviews with 11 residents of a temporary housing program in Metro Vancouver (Canada). RESULTS: Using thematic analysis, we organized meanings of AIRP according to (1) Where one lives-the physical and social environment, (2) Where one goes and what one does, and (3) How one feels in "the right place." DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Participants meanings' of AIRP are applied to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That is, when basic needs of shelter are met, participants' considerations of "the right place to age" extend beyond affordable housing to include feeling safe and comfortable in one's home and neighborhood and having access to meaningful engagement and activities-both in vibrant urban districts and naturescapes-enabled by affordable transportation. Our examination of what AIRP means to this group of older adults broadens current conceptualizations. Given the increase in homelessness among older adults, it is imperative that policymakers and practitioners are cognizant of meanings of AIRP so diverse older adults can not only age in place, but can thrive in the right place.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".