MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416827568 · doi:10.5539/res.v17n2p1

Older Adults’ Health, Ethnicity, and Daily Life

2025· article· W4416827568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyun‐Sook Kang, Mihae Bae

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingEthnic groupSocioeconomic statusMarital statusMultivariate analysis of varianceMultivariate analysisHealth and Retirement Study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the relationship between ethnicity and daily functional disabilities among older adults, focusing on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs). The analysis uses data from the 2020 National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) survey, which included a sample of individuals aged 57-85 (n=3,005). Respondents provided information on their demographic background (e.g., income, gender, race, age, health, retirement, and marital status) and socioeconomic characteristics through telephone interviews. The study hypothesized that ethnic differences would be evident in perceived difficulties with ADLs and IADLs in later life. To assess these relationships, both MANOVA and regression analyses were conducted. The results showed that African American and Hispanic older adults reported greater difficulty with ADLs and IADLs compared to their Anglo counterparts, highlighting significant ethnic disparities in daily functional challenges. These findings are consistent with the convoy model, suggesting that ethnicity significantly influences health outcomes and functional abilities in later life. Future research should include a broader range of variables to deepen our understanding of the complex interplay between demographic factors and health outcomes, including daily functional disabilities, among older adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207