Older adult insights for age friendly environments, products and service systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that by 2020, a quarter of the European population will be aged over 65, and expected to grow further by two million annually after 2012 [1] There is also an expectation that children born after 2011 may live to 100 years old [2], these factors are expected to impact on economy, social security and health care systems. The importance of these systems and environments to accommodate and adapt to our changing needs as we age presents opportunity to research through design. Environments, in the context of this paper, are the spaces, products and product service systems that we engage with, alone or with others, within and outside the home. A design coalition [3] was generated between a number of academic Institutions and ISAX (Ireland Smart Ageing Exchange) an ‘ageing think tank’ organisation in Ireland. The intention of this coalition was to generate awareness of needs requirements for older adults, in environments that facilitate and are beneficial. In addition, it would provide an example of how participatory design research can inform innovation in business and policy development at a local and state level.A five-week study was conducted using design and ethnographic methods with twenty-two Older Adult participants (age range 69 – 80). The themes of study were identified as: Mobility, Public Spaces, Safety, Social Engagement, Services & Facilities. Cultural probes, semi-structured interviews and user observation, by both researchers and older adult participants, were used as methods to identify the unmet needs of participants within the sample group. The outcomes of research were presented at a Co-Design Symposium in June 2016. This Symposium was attended by over 100 people of various backgrounds (town planners, architects, transport experts, retailers, builders, health and other service providers). The older adult participants and designers (staff and researchers from the School of Design at the University of Limerick, IT Carlow, Limerick Institute of Technology and Limerick School of Art & Design) were placed within a team of ten. The research was presented using audio/visual presentation as well as artefacts from the fieldwork, completed diaries, scrapbooks, storyboards etc. Solutions were worked on, and delivered at end of day. This Symposium has impacted positively whereby policy makers in local government have invited ISAX to further discuss research outcomes and needs of older adults as a means to develop access areas in and around Limerick City. This paper outlines in further detail the design research methods used and the benefits through design education Student/ Researcher /Stakeholder collaboration by application ‘in the ‘field’. New, relevant work: This work displays the effectiveness of design coalitions in influencing and affecting change and insight into policy. It highlights how Co-Design collaborations can impact and generate design solutions that improve day to day experiences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".