Scoping review: food as an axis to shaping social participation for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neighbourhood resources that support older adults’ capacity to age in place is crucial to the maintenance of well-being. Seemingly mundane aspects of daily habits and chores like food-related activities are often taken for granted, but they provide a valuable resource to support older adults’ ability to age in their homes and in their familiar communities. Food can act as an avenue to engage outside of one’s home and allow older adults to interact with their communities in ways that promote belonging; however, access to resources that promote well-being and social connection through food occupations is often inequitably distributed and is affected by a multitude of events in older age. A previously established and ongoing participatory action research (PAR) project formed the base of this study. It highlights the centrality of food to seniors’ experiences of social inclusion and exclusion1. This project involves completing a scoping review addressing the question: what is known about the role of food-related occupations in relation to aging in community and the shaping of social inclusion/exclusion1? Spanning seven databases, nineteen articles were selected for inclusion that address the aforementioned question.\nReferences:\n1. Rudman, D. (2021, April). Research proposal. London, Ontario.
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 | 0.016 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".