MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404834078 · doi:10.53555/lpi.v44i3.3174

Welfare Of Senior Citizens & Sustainable Development Goals: Learning For India

2024· article· en· W4404834078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adish Vinod Halarnkar, Geeta Geeta

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Progress (International) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentWelfareBusinessPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sustainable Development Goals National Indicator Framework Progress Report 2023 ranked India 39th for Good Health and Well-Being. India ranks 112th out of 166 countries in the attainment of sustainable development goals, according to the Sustainable Development Report 2023. The Constitution of India, pertinent legislation, and many programs and initiatives at both national and state tier protects interests of senior citizens. Various countries implemented strategies, programs, and measures for the wellbeing of older persons within their jurisdictions. Studying the practices of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, Australia, and Switzerland could enhance our country's ability to safeguard the interests of older residents more effectively. This study examines the welfare of older citizens in India and various other countries to enhance performance and safeguard their interests. The study proposes strategies and approaches for the wellbeing of older adults, informed by insights from many countries, utilizing a doctrinal research technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary Progress (International)→Same topicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality→French-language works237,207→