L’expérience des difficultés économiques et les stratégies d’adaptation chez les personnes âgées canadiennes. Analyse comparée avec d’autres groupes d’âge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework : In a waning welfare state context, older adults’ support needs are often unmet through public services. This insight calls for research on alternative strategies mobilized by older adults to mitigate their vulnerabilities.Objectives : This article focuses on material hardships, defined as difficulties covering basic consumption needs. It explores the prevalence of those issues and the various coping strategies among older adults in comparison to patterns observed in younger age groups. We also attend to differences across region types, ranging from metropolitan centers to rural areas.Methodology : Data are from the General Social Survey (Statistics Canada, 2011). Regression analyses compare the odds of experiencing material hardships and of employing several coping strategies to overcome this difficulty across age and regional categories. Results : Older adults exhibit a lower risk of experiencing material hardships compared to younger groups. When living through material hardships, they are less likely to identify financial support from close social ties as a coping strategy and more likely to report alternative ones than younger persons. Financial support from social networks is also less likely outside of metropolitan areas as compared to within them. Conclusions : Older adults are at a lower risk of material hardships, but when facing them they deploy a different set of coping strategies compared to younger groups, reflecting divergences in constraints and available resources across age groups. Contribution : The literature on aging populations has thus far paid little attention to material hardships and economic vulnerability among older adults, focusing instead on their health-related difficulties. This study helps to fill in this gap. We also contribute to research on kin- and friend-based networks of support by stressing that, during moments of need, receiving monetary support is less common among older adults than in younger age groups.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".