MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389613829 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1302493

Health care in future community: innovatively discover and respond to the needs of today’s seniors

2023· article· en· W4389613829 on OpenAlexaff
Bowen Zhou, Qidan Deng, Shiyuan Zhou, Dongni Zhuo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersPeople's Government of Jilin Province
KeywordsHealth careGerontologyMedicineData scienceNursingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In the context of the digital economy, the emergence and application of emerging technologies have accelerated the integration of traditional social structures with new technologies, leading to the inception of the "Future Community" as an innovative urban unit. With an aging population's rapid and sustained rise, integrating health care for older adults with modern information technology is gradually moving towards holistic governance. This approach utilizes the Future Community as a medium and aims for quality enhancement and increased efficiency, which instrumentally addresses the diversified health care needs of China's aging era. Methods: In this study, we employed a questionnaire survey method that covered 11 communities in Tianjin City to understand better the current status and characteristics of their health care services. Results: The survey results show that the means of community health care for older adults are gradually being upgraded, and the demands are shifting. Then, we arrive at three conclusions: firstly, technological innovation and smart approaches have the potential to positively influence the quality of health care in these communities. Secondly, allocating health care resources within communities can have a salutary effect on the psychological well-being of seniors. Thirdly, actively involving seniors in community life and governance can elevate their self-worth. Discussion: At last, in conjunction with current challenges, we think that deepening multi-party collaboration, educating specialized talents, and bridging the "digital gap" would be effective ways to establish a future community for seniors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207