MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404863862 · doi:10.1017/s0714980824000345

Being and Doing Together in a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community: Pandemic Experiences of Older Adults

2024· article· en· W4404863862 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kassandra Fernandes, Carri Hand, Debbie Laliberté Rudman, Colleen McGrath, Helen Cooper, Catherine Donnelly, Vincent DePaul, Lori Letts, Julie Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetirement communityPandemicGerontologyAging in placeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologySociologyMedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing effective, sustainable strategies that promote social inclusion, reduce isolation, and support older adults' wellbeing continues to be important to aging communities in Canada. One strategy that targets community-living older adults involves identifying naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) and supporting them through supportive service programs (NORC-SSPs). This qualitative descriptive study utilized semi-structured interviews to explore how older adults living in a NORC supported by an SSP, sought to build, and maintain, a sense of community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis revealed how changes in context prompted changes in the program and community, and how despite lack of in-person opportunities participants continued to be together and do occupations together in creative ways that supported their sense of community. NORC-SSPs, like Oasis, play an important role in supporting older adults' capacity to build strong, resilient communities that support wellbeing, during a global pandemic and in non-pandemic times.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→