Age-Friendly Communities: Are they also “Friendly” for Death, Dying, Grief, and Bereavement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The age-friendly movement aims to ensure that people can live healthy and meaningful lives as they age. It is committed to activity and inclusion, with policies, services, and structures that enable older adults to remain engaged in activities that they value. We suggest that there is further opportunity for communities to increase inclusion and reduce ageism by improving their "death-friendliness". A death-friendly approach could lay the groundwork for a community in which people do not fear getting old or alienate those who have. To this end, we consider the merits of the compassionate communities framework which has emerged out of palliative care and critical public health. Compassionate communities focus on end-of-life planning, bereavement support, and improved understandings about aging, dying, death, loss, and care. The age-friendly and compassionate communities initiatives are complementary in their objectives but have not yet converged in practice. We suggest that they should.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".