Crossing Age and Generational Boundaries: Exploring Intergenerational Research Encounters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it