Crossing Age and Generational Boundaries: Exploring Intergenerational Research Encounters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academics and professionals who aim to understand and plan for aging societies are most often younger than study participants and the benefactors of social programs themselves. However, the appropriateness of such intergenerational practice is beginning to be questioned. It has been suggested that only older people should conduct research, consult on and plan programs for older people. To understand the benefits and pitfalls of such an approach, research encounters between younger and older people will be used as examples from which to explore the question: what happens when individuals attempt to reach across age and generational boundaries? Situating age and generation as organizing principles, insights will be gleaned from the anthropological insider–outsider debate, linguistic work on age‐based differences, and emotional associations and identification across age and generational boundaries. This paper argues that the ways older and younger people relate to each other may hold the potential for connection and/or conflict between the generations. Results suggest that age and generation be considered one of the many social locations that may impact the research process and outcomes. Researchers and policy makers of all ages must begin to reflect on their involvement with age and generational boundaries.
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 | 0.048 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".