On the Possibilities of "Ageing Successfully" with Extensive PhysicalImpairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on qualitative interviews with Swedish women and men between the ages 65-72 who have been living with physical impairments for a long period of time, this article considers the opportunities and challenges of adopting a leisurely active and self-fulfilling lifestyle in later life if one uses a wheelchair and/or is relatively dependent upon other people’s support. The participants’ accounts point to the importance of considering how social and environmental contexts may influence the meanings and consequences of chronic illnesses and impairments for people of all ages. General developments in welfare, technical improvements, as well as a long line of reforms that include legislation on the adaptation of homes and the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (Lag om stöd och service till vissa funktionshindrade, LSS) are commented upon as changes that have contributed to the leisurely active lifestyle of the interviewees Because it focuses on today’s "young old disabled people" – women and men who have grown up and are growing old during an era of technological advances and developments in the area of disability policies – the article gives voice to a group of people who have been largely overlooked in gerontology and in the literature on the modern, active, "successfully ageing" senior citizen. In research on disability and in disability policy there are, similarly, few references to disabled seniors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".