Verification of a comprehensive framework for mobility using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging: a structural equation modeling analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobility within and between life spaces is fundamental for health and well-being. Our objective was to verify a comprehensive framework for mobility. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. We used structural equation modeling to estimate associations between latent factors with data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging for participants 65-85 years of age (65+, n = 11,667) and for adults with osteoarthritis (OA) aged 45-85 (n = 5,560). Latent factors included life space mobility, and physical, psychosocial, environmental, financial, and cognitive elements. Personal variables (age, sex, education) were covariates. RESULTS: The models demonstrated good fit (65+: CFI = 0.90, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.025 (0.024, 0.026); OA: CFI = 0.90, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.032 (0.031, 0.033)). In both models, better psychosocial and physical health, and being less afraid to walk after dark (observed environmental variable) were associated with greater life space mobility. Greater financial status was associated with better psychosocial and physical health. Higher education was related to better cognition and finances. Older age was associated with lower financial status, cognition, and physical health. Cognitive health was positively associated with greater mobility only in the 65 + model. Models generated were equivalent for males and females. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between determinants described in the mobility framework were verified with adults 65-85 years of age and in an OA group when all factors were considered together using SEM. These results have implications for clinicians and researchers in terms of important outcomes when assessing life space mobility; findings support interdisciplinary analyses that include evaluation of cognition, depression, anxiety, environmental factors, and community engagement, as well as physical and financial health. Public policies that influence older adults and their abilities to access communities beyond their homes need to reflect the complexity of factors that influence life space mobility at both individual and societal levels.
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 | 0.037 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".