"We're all in it together"" The experiences of women aging in place: The case of Searchmont, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This ethnographic case study of the experiences of older women aging in place in Searchmont, a community with a population of 293 people in northeastern Ontario, has three objectives: 1) to discover the experiences of older women in Searchmont, 2) to explore the connection between women and their community, and 3) to draw conclusions about the structural context of aging in a rural community in northern Ontario. With a growing number of older adults moving into rural communities, or remaining in rural communities into older age, it is a timely exploration. Current policy trends and service restructuring are especially harmful toward vulnerable groups, including older women living outside of the urban context. Cuts to rural services, the privatization of services, and an increased reliance on informal support networks to meet the demands of an aging population create barriers to aging in place. Current trends result in patchwork transit solutions, limited access to information and services, and housing concerns. These factors impact the health and wellbeing of rural-dwelling older women. In addition to large-scale trends, geographic context plays an important role in determining the level of support for older women in rural areas. Aging in place, critical feminist gerontology, and ecological systems theories were used to conduct this case study. The subject of the study includes a history of Searchmont and findings from interviews with five older women living in the community, highlighting the intersection of age, gender, and rural identity. The participants revealed the importance of community fluctuations and meso-level concern for community cohesion into the future. The role of gender in family and community, and level of activity as determined by health were cited as contributors to community sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".