MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7118081505 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf122.773

Strategies for Updating Social Participation Services: The Case of Baby Boomers in Quebec and Spain

2025· article· en· W7118081505 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dolores Majón-Valpuesta, Mélanie Levasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersPromotion (chess)AutonomyPopulationDiversity (politics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Service (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Services designed to promote social participation as a key factor in healthy aging are struggling to meet the expectations of a large generation of older adults, the baby boomer, which in 2021 represented more than a quarter (26%) of the population in both Quebec (Canada) and Spain. Despite the challenge of adapting services to the participation needs of this cohort, little is known about the strategies and changes required to make these services attractive to them. This presentation aims to report results of two qualitative studies exploring the strategies to update services aimed to promote social participation of baby boomer generation. These two studies were both developed in Spain and Quebec with 53 individuals and 12 group interviews, involving a total of 107 baby boomers and 52 community representatives. Three strategies were identified: 1) the consideration of intragenerational diversity from an intersectional perspective, according to criteria such as life trajectories, autonomy levels, identity factors, and daily environment; 2) the organization of services and participation beyond the age criterion, i.e., by interests, needs, common values in which a real interaction between generations is favored; 3) the promotion of services flexible where baby boomers have control over their time, i.e., services friendly to conciliation (caring for oneself, others, continuing professional life, etc.). The services will respond to meaningful participation for members of this generation according to the willingness of decision-makers and service designers to implement these strategies. Enhancing these services leads to greater motivation to participate and responsible use of community resources.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→