Aging at home in the diversity of urban and rural forms in Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the “Age-Friendly Cities” (AFC) initiative, Québécois municipalities are called on to develop thinking with a common assessment protocol aimed at the implementation of facilities and services for more inclusive and active ageing. In this context, while mobility depends to a great extent on individual characteristics, the attributes of the territory also have an impact on the mobility potential of its inhabitants and their possibility to contribute to society. As such, the relative functional diversity, residential population density and territorial accessibility of the central districts of large towns are often presented as more favourable to ageing than suburban areas. So where does that leave medium-sized towns, peri-urban territories and rural areas? Are they home to substantially different, and even contrasted, development issues requiring a particular AFC policy? In this article, we look at the role played by development and urban planning in the construction and consolidation of territories favourable to ageing according to different living environments. We start by proposing a typology of residential forms in six regions of Québec (Outaouais, Laurentides, Lanaudière, Montréal, Laval and Mauricie), highlighting common but often contrasted, and even differentiated, issues. We then debate these issues in the light of seven discussion groups organised with seniors in these territories. While the complexity of the issues appears fundamental, their common denominator is that the combination of proximity and accessibility proves to be a privileged and fundamental subject of multidisciplinary discussion and intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".