Age-friendly community capacity building in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the number of communities in Canada implementing Age-Friendly \nprogramming is growing every year, few of these programs have been evaluated. The \ncurrent research used social capital theory to study and to evaluate age-friendliness in \nNewfoundland and Labrador. Social capital is a useful theoretical framework when \nstudying the impact of Age-Friendly community capacity building. Some communities \nmay experience few challenges when bringing together volunteers and community \nmembers, whereas for others, this may be a major obstacle. A mixed methods approach to \ndata collection included a) surveys of 23 communities, including surveys completed by \n45 individual Age-Friendly committee members, b) an analysis of existing census and \nhealth data, and c) qualitative focus groups or interviews with 35 committee members in \n11 communities, and with 43 seniors in 4 communities. In total, 108 people and 24 \ncommunities participated in this research. Communities were primarily small in \npopulation and were located in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Nearly all \nprovincial geographic regions were represented in the analysis. Participants from \ncommunities with a high overall satisfaction with life had a significantly higher social \ncapital score, and participants from communities with a high income per capita had a \nsignificantly lower sense of community than those living in a medium income per capita \ncommunity. Population change significantly predicated sense of community, such that \ncommunities experiencing population outmigration experienced a lower sense of \ncommunity. Qualitative findings indicated benefits for communities related to \nintergenerational programming, and for seniors, related to health, social support, and \ntechnological education. Outmigration both increased the need for Age-Friendly programming given aging populations, and created a challenge for program development \ngiven volunteer burnout, typically addressed by community capacity building and \nmaximizing social capital resources. Those communities who experienced lower levels of \nbonding social capital typically had more problems developing this capacity. Overall, \ncommunity social capital was a helpful framework in understanding the success of \ncommunity-based initiatives in rural or small-town Newfoundland and Labrador.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".