MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413441622 · doi:10.1080/26892618.2025.2534955

Prototypes of Digital Tools to Support the Housing Decisions of Older Adults: A Swedish Study Engaging Various Stakeholders in a 5-Day Sprint

2025· article· en· W4413441622 on OpenAlexaff
Susanna Nordin, C Allyson Jones, France Légaré, Louise Meijering, Marie Elf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Alberta
FundersJoint Programming Initiative More Years, Better Lives
KeywordsSprintBusinessPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suitable housing is essential for older adults at risk of deteriorating health, yet housing decision support is often lacking. A 5-day co-design sprint was conducted to develop digital prototypes supporting informed housing decisions. Key stakeholders including older adults, healthcare professionals, and technology- and architecture professionals participated. Notes from observations and textual content of the prototypes were thematically analyzed. Four prototypes were created and summarized in the themes: tailored to individual needs and preferences, comprehensive palette of choices, multifaceted information accessibility, and connections to the outer social world. The findings contribute to further development of evidence-based decision support related to housing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and EnvironmentSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207