MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408539462 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnaf107

The Gentrification Acceleration Press Schema: A Critical Examination of Gentrification-Induced Displacement in Later Life

2025· article· en· W4408539462 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Van Vleet, Kate de Medeiros

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationAging in placeCompetence (human resources)Schema (genetic algorithms)GerontologySociologyPsychologySocial psychologyEconomic growthMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging in place is an important environmental consideration in gerontology from the standpoint of research and aging individuals. Although the majority of aging adults in the United States prefer aging in place to relocating to different environments (e.g., retirement communities and cohabitation with adult children), many barriers prevent this outcome. For example, for low-income and marginalized older adults, aging in place is far from a certainty due to historical disadvantages. Unanticipated changes to one's environment, such as neighborhood gentrification, may threaten one's ability to age in place. In certain circumstances, gentrification-induced displacement can lead older adults to experience severe outcomes such as later-life housing insecurity. In this paper, we use a person-environment fit framework and a competence-press model-gentrification acceleration press or GAP-to consider how environmental factors such as gentrification lead to displacement, directly affecting older adults' ability to age in place. By applying and expanding the GAP framework, we explore the contexts and other systemic factors that affect environments of underrepresented older adults and aging in place. Overall, we suggest ways that the GAP schema can guide important future research and help provide an age-inclusive framework for advocates of older adults wishing to age in place.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207