Engagement of seniors: 'How' and 'why' engagement profiles change over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored 'how' and 'why' engagement profiles change throughout older adulthood within a framework of successful aging. A convergent parallel mixed methods design was employed. Fifty-four participants (mean age = 79.17, age range = 65-97 years; 21 males, 33 females) completed questionnaires to quantify 'past' and 'present' engagement. Focus groups segmented by decade of life and semi-structured interviews were completed with a subsample of participants (n = 42). Results indicated that participation in productive and active leisure activities decreased with increasing age, while social and passive leisure engagement remained stable. This change in engagement pattern may be a function of the themes derived from the fundamental qualitative description: (a) health and physical limitations, (b) death, (c) freedom, (d) desire, and (e) external influential factors. The 'how' and 'why' of engagement changes in later life were often embedded within the lay-based, multi-dimensional model of successful aging proposed herein.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".