MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118076286 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4366

Subject Matter Expert Insights for Engaging Underrepresented Older Adults with Disabilities in Research

2025· article· en· W7118076286 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Remillard, Maurita T. Harris, Kyra Miller, Wendy Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyDiversity (politics)PaceGovernment (linguistics)PopulationBest practiceWorkforceInclusion (mineral)Subject-matter expert

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The population of older Americans is increasingly diverse. To keep pace with this demographic shift and advance gerontological research, it is critical that research samples reflect this diversity, so findings are generalizable and representative. However, there are barriers to engaging individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, such as a mistrust of government institutions, historical precedence of unethical research, language barriers, and logistical challenges that often impede participation. There are some general recommendations for expanding diversity of research samples and overcoming these barriers, but there is a need to understand more about best practices for older adults with disabilities, which is a population that can be especially challenging to reach. We interviewed Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who had direct experience (professional or personal) engaging older adults and/or people with disabilities from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Black/African American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino American, and Native American). Participants (N = 13) included researchers, clinicians, and advocacy group leaders. The SMEs shared insights on effective strategies for recruitment, outreach, study design, and knowledge dissemination. Their recommendations had key themes including establishing reciprocal community partnerships, involving community members on the research team, offering flexible ways to participate, and carefully considering terminology when referring to disability, race, and ethnicity. These interviews with SMEs provided important insights and actionable solutions to improve the diversity and inclusivity of research samples. Ensuring that participant samples reflect the range of persons who will use a product, technology, intervention, or community program will contribute to successful implementation, ultimately improving quality of life for older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0020.019
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207