Housing Instability and Policy Considerations for Equitable Aging in Place in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this article, we apply a gender-based analysis plus framework to research the housing experiences of older, low-income adults living and aging in Hamilton. Low-income older adults with intersectional identities are at risk of not aging in place due to marginalization and housing instability. OBJECTIVE: Policy currently homogenizes the experience of aging by sidelining intersectional factors that have a bearing on aging well in place. The research aims to develop policy recommendations to address this gap. METHODS: Several methods captured the housing experiences of low-income older adults, including interviews, participant observation, and arts-based techniques. FINDINGS: Findings illustrate how gender and intersectional factors shape both housing trajectories and agentive practices low-income adults utilize to try to age well and in place. These strategies encompass practicing cultural citizenship, which is a claim for inclusion when excluded from mainstream ideals of aging in place. DISCUSSION: We provide policy recommendations informed by participants' lived experiences aimed at promoting equitable aging in place as fundamental to full citizenship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".