Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible design, 92 Activities of daily living (ADL), 178, 183 Activity Card Sort, 119-120 Adaptation or product design, 104 Additional safety, identification of needs for, 55-56 Adult learning, 135 Advocate for good design, 104 Age International, 4 Age-friendly cities, 63 Ageing, 41 assessment tools, 52-54 changes to home, 48-49 common dilemmas, 49-56 environment, neighbourhoods and community for ageing in place, 62-63 future home and community, 64 identification of needs for minor adaptation, compensation and additional safety, 55-56 implications for occupational therapists, 65-66 importance of home, 41 influences, 42-47 initiatives, 63-64 interventions in response to assessed need for home adaptations, 52-55 living arrangements, 42 with other conditions, 140-157 other forms of housing, 58-59 in place, 42 in place through inclusive design, 95-96 pros and cons involved in deciding to change physical fabric of home, 46 strategies and services, 43-45 supporting theory, 47-48 transition to residential care, 59-61 transitions to different living arrangements, 56-59 Alcoholism, 162 Amazon Alexa, 70 Ambient intelligence, 70 Artificial intelligence (AI), 69, 208 applications for health care and for health promotion, 209 Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), 55, 177 Assisted living, 57-58 Assistive technologies, 49, 56 new and future, 76 provision, 196 Automated home, 75 Bandura's model of self-efficacy, 115 Bathroom and kitchen design, 94 Bathroom design and older people, 94-95 Befriending, 134-135 Behavioural change, 114 Bladder's leash, 163 Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), 55, 120, 178 Canadian Occupational Therapy Guidelines, 113 Care homes frequent reality of life in, 60-61 residents' needs, 61 working to provide training and support to, 66 Carers assist and support, 183, 185 needs, 180 working with, 168-170 Cessation of Working Life, 6-7 Chat bots, 72-73 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 77 Climate change, 11 Cloud computing, 69-70 Co-existent health problems, 157-158 Co-housing, 58 Cochrane Data Base of systematic reviews, 140 Cognitive rehabilitation, 182-183 Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST), 182 Community for ageing in place, 62-63 Community occupational therapy, 185 Community Occupational Therapy Programme for Dementia (COTiD), 132-133 Community platforms for making contacts and sharing interests, 81-82 Community resources, 27 Companionship existing solutions to provide, 82-83 new and future solutions, 83 Compassionate communities, 63-64 Comprehensive assessment of people, 178-179 Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), 178-179 Comprehensive information, ensuring availability of, 65-66 Consumerism paradigm, 208 Contacts, 81-82 COVID 7,[70][71][72] 194,[208][209] 90
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.835 | 0.748 |
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".