MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417436048 · doi:10.3390/buildings15244558

A Biophilic Therapeutic Framework for Ageing Well in Care Settings

2025· article· en· W4417436048 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carolyn Thomas, Yangang Xing, Andrew Knight, David J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)Wearable computerCognitionWearable technologyHealth careLevel designAssisted livingAging in placeQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to nature is fundamental to human health and wellbeing, yet opportunities for direct and frequent engagement with natural environments are often restricted for individuals in the 80+ age category, particularly those in care settings or living in remote locations. There is therefore an urgent need to enhance nature connections in care settings and provide personalised, restorative experiences that reflect individuals preferred natural features. This prefeasibility pilot study developed a framework to inform the design of therapeutic care settings, grounded in the principles of biophilic neuroarchitecture and designed to support ageing well. Conducted over six months in two care environments, the study applied the biophilic pattern of Complexity and Order to simulate Natural Analogues within immersive virtual settings. Mixed methods combining wearable sensor data and self-reported wellbeing measures were used to assess psychophysiological, emotional, and cognitive responses among participants aged 80 and above. Findings revealed that VR content aligned with individual nature preferences elicited higher levels of engagement, relaxation, and positive affect. This study demonstrates the potential for implementing biophilic design applications to develop therapeutic care settings which promote wellbeing and healthy ageing, particularly where access to real nature is infrequent or limited.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 venueBuildingsSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207