Intergenerationality in the Context of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: Older People’s Experiences and Perspectives on Place and Community Living in the UK
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
Intergenerational communities can be understood as communities where multiple age groups interact, feel valued, and contribute to community life in an inclusive way. However, older adults in many communities in the UK can be excluded from intergenerational mixing. The PlaceAge project undertook interviews, photo-diaries, community mapping workshops, and knowledge cafés to explore older adult experiences of and participation in their cities and communities. Three key themes were generated, showcasing intergenerationality: (1) Connectedness in place and space; (2) Feeling old in siloed communities; and (3) Play in everyday life. This research emphasizes the importance of inclusive and accessible intergenerational places and activities that foster sustainable social connections and combat ageism. It highlights the value of playfulness, skill-sharing and co-mentoring, and advocates for the importance of incorporating intergenerational opportunities into the planning and development of age-friendly cities and communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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