The Role of Age-Friendly Environment in Promoting Healthy Aging: From Multidimensional Environmental Facets and Psychological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-friendly environments are a key determinant of healthy aging, while subjective age is assumed to be a psychological factor affecting one’s behavior and well-being. This study explores how age-friendly environments play a role in promoting healthy aging through (1) putting macro-social and micro-family environments in the same context and (2) examining the moderating role of subjective age. In a random sample of 2,788 older adults, we found that (1) higher levels of age-friendly family and social environments were consistently associated with better health outcomes; (2) subjective age significantly moderated the social environment–frailty relationship (β = −0.26, p < 0.001), with stronger protective effects observed among those feeling older; and (3) specific social environment domains (life security and accessibility) showed particularly pronounced moderation effects by subjective age. These findings demonstrate that environmental and psychological factors jointly influence health states, and underscore the need for integrated interventions that enhance age-friendly environments and foster positive aging perceptions to optimize health in later life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".