A Collaborative Initiative for Mobility and Autonomy of Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social participation is associated with successful aging. However, older adults encounter many barriers for social activities. The study aims for the proposition of solutions in favor of increasing the participation of older adults in daily life activities. A living-lab design was chosen to ensure the active participation of older adults and the stakeholders. The data collected included questionnaires, workshops writings and surveys. A total of 159 older adults and 126 collaborators participated in the study. The results showed a gap between the perception of the geriatric professionals and the reality of the difficulties reported by the older adults. Professionals perceived for 80% that walking was the main issue for mobility while only 23% of older adults said so. Seven topics were investigated: Technology, Nutrition, Health, Housing, Transportation, Social Network and Activities. To maintain autonomy and mobility, Social Network was the most important topic before health and transportation. Older adults and collaborators were unaware of the variety of local existing solutions. That shows malfunctioning in the communication strategy. The study detected contact person among the older adults who are highly motivated and convinced by the action. The collaborators should rely on contact persons for the transmission of the information to their peers.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it