MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405976337 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igae098.0022

UNDERSTANDING INCLUSIVE PHYSICAL PLACES AND VIRTUAL SPACES: THE FORTITUDE OF OLDER MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES

2024· article· en· W4405976337 on OpenAlexaff
Mei Lan Fang, Judith Sixsmith, Susan Buell, Darren Chadwick, Kathryn Almack, Richard Vytniorgu, Joe Tai

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The World Health Organization (WHO) Age-Friendly Cities and Communities (AFCC) agenda emphasizes collaboration among older individuals, local groups, councils, and businesses to enhance communities. This involves improvements in several social and environmental domains including transportation, outdoor spaces, volunteering, employment opportunities, and leisure and community services. IncludeAge, a UK Economic and Social Research Council funded project, addresses multifaceted aspects of age-friendly communities beyond the emphasis on social and physical environments, highlighting the importance of belonging and identity alongside cultural and life course experiences. Focusing on physical and online places and spaces, IncludeAge takes intersectional and life course perspectives to understanding the inclusion of mid-older (40+) people who are often marginalized: those with intellectual disabilities and LGBT+ individuals. Employing a transdisciplinary, innovative mixed-methods approach and guided by Community-Based Participatory Research principles, our longitudinal study uses life course interviews, GIS story mapping and social network analysis to document experiences of inclusion and exclusion in past lives and current real-time. Preliminary insights underscore the importance of the cultural and historical dynamics of experienced stigma and discrimination, the value of ‘hidden spaces and places’ and ‘experiences on the periphery’. We use the Intersectional Place Perspective (IPP) theoretical model to aid interpretation. Through co-developed story maps and individual narratives, we aim to amplify the voices of marginalized groups in designing potential solutions to exclusionary experiences and practices, fostering empowerment and social inclusion. Our research will advance understanding of AFCC and community inclusion as a human right, thereby supporting meaningful everyday lives for our focal populations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207