Older Adults in Administrative Quagmire: A Scoping Review of Policy and Program Coordination Across Six Marginalized Older Adult Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coordination of governmental action is crowded with policies and programs that are highly interdependent, sometimes operating in silos if not contradicting each other. These dilemmas, or administrative quagmires, are heightened for older adults in general, but they are particularly problematic for marginalized older adults because these groups often require public assistance and support. This scoping review studies the coordination of governmental action on aging published in social science journals, focusing on 6 groups of marginalized older adults: those with histories of immigration, individuals with severe mental health problems, those who have had experiences of homelessness, formerly incarcerated individuals, members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community, and individuals living in a rural area. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 5-stage scoping review methodology was followed, and 53 articles (published between 2000 and 2022) from 5 social science databases were analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis revealed a limited number of contributions with coordination as a primary focus. Understandings of coordination varied but tended to examine structure, organization, and relationships between sectors. When coordination was the primary object of a study, it was often analyzed in 1 specific policy area or within a clinical setting along the lines of facilitating care coordination. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This scoping review reveals a mutual neglect on the part of public administration and policy scholars toward marginalized older adults and a lack of public administration considerations on the part of scholars studying long-term care and social service programs for these marginalized older adults.
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 | 0.064 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".