MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037646545

Evaluation of a congregate retirement residence and housing preferences of prospective occupants

2011· article· en· W7037646545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentResidenceQuarter (Canadian coin)Index (typography)Retirement ageRetirement planningNursing homes
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the growing numbers of elderly people, the interest and concern with elderly housing has expanded.The situation of aged people in our modern society is unique.Most often, elderly people who are no longer healthy enough to live alone or no longer wish to maintain a residence must seek some sort of congregate housing.Different types of congregate housing are available -from retirement hotels to nursing homes.The two general purposes of this study were to determine: a) the factors which influence the propensity of an elderly person to move into retirement housing, and b) the features of a particular retirement facility that were important in predicting the satisfaction of pros- pective occupants with that facility.In addition, data concerning housing features preferences of the respondents were collected.This study dealt with a specific facility, called a retirement residence, which provided limited health, personal and social services.The follow- ing categories of variables, which were thought to be related to propensity to move were measured: a) demographic variables, b) respondent's satisfaction with the facility, and c) an index named the ideal resident index.This index was a deviation score computed for each respondent (potential user) which reflected the congruence between the respondent's actual demographic characterisitics and housing preferences, and the characteristics and preferences that the designers thought would be true of the users.The forty elderly people who participated in the study had all been visitors to the retirement residence under study.Questionnaires deal- ing with background information, housing preferences, reasons affecting the decision to move or stay and impressions of this particular retirement residence were mailed to respondents.Later, interviews employing visual displays were conducted with each respondent individually.The purpose of the interview was to a) gain information concerning the preferences of elderly with regard to physical appearance of facilities, b) get feedback on certain design features of this specific retirement residence, and c) to gather data about the respondents' expected usage of different spaces provided in the facility.A step-wise multiple regression analysis on propensity to move revealed that the ideal resident index was the most important predictor, while health and physical strength of the respondent was second most important.Together they accounted for 27.6 percent of the total vari- ance.Satisfaction with the facility was not significantly related to the propensity to move.A step-wise multiple regression analysis was also done on satis- faction with the facility.It was found that the most important factor in predicting satisfaction with the facility was satisfaction with the medical servcies provided at the facility.The second most important factor was a "convenience" factor composed of a) satisfaction with convenience of transportation facilities, b) satisfaction with con- venience of shopping facilities, and c) satisfaction with the amount of rent.Together, these two factors accounted for 47.3 percent of the total variance.with regard to housing preferences, some of the results were that most of our respondents a) did not want to live in a big city or sur- rounding suburb, b) preferred completely private bedrooms and bathrooms, c) wished to be located near shopping facilities and friends, d) thought that home medical care was important, and e) preferred one-story buildings.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)Same topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207