Are age friendly communities also resilient communities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In both absolute and relative terms the number of older people is increasing globally, and while everyone hopes to stay active and healthy as they age, seniors face particular challenges to maintaining health, and consequently make more use of healthcare services than any other age group. But the challenges faced by individual seniors and to our health care system can be mitigated by policy interventions that promote seniors’ health. In this paper we focus on one such policy that has generated global interest: Age-Friendly Communities (AFC). According to the World Health Organization these are communities, “where policies, services and structures related to the physical and social environment [that] are designed to support and enable older people … to live in security, enjoy good health and continue to participate fully in society”. Specifically we present the findings of a collaborative study of the perceptions of residents–old and young–regarding age-friendliness of one Canadian city, St John’s, the capital city of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our study represents the first to test whether residents’ impressions of AFC characteristics differ by age.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".