Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this two-part paper, the author examines inter-generational program research and evaluation based on a framework derived from a collaborative UNESCO (2000)-sponsored review of the intergenerational program field. In Part One, conceptual foundations for intergenerational programming are considered, taking into account theories that focus on individuals and groups within interactive contexts, those that focus primarily on individual development, and conceptually based program evaluations. In Part Two, appearing in the next issue of this journal, effects of intergenerational program participation are described, with emphasis on program activities and various program contexts. Challenges and questions emerging from the literature are presented, identifying the need for a greater use of theory in research, more cross cultural research, expanded outcomes, and solutions to some of the methodological challenges in intergenerational program research and evaluation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.049 |
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".