Old News: Why the 90‐Year Crisis in Medical Elder Care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American and European demographic projections indicate that by 2030, persons aged 65 and older will outnumber those younger than 15 by a ratio of 2:1. Curiously, principles of geriatric care have not taken strong hold among nongeriatric specialties, even as we approach the time of greatest need. To explore historical precedents for the current crisis in elder care, this article revisits the prescriptions of G. Stanley Hall's Senescence: The Last Half of Life (1922), a text widely recognized as one of the founding texts in the medicalized study of aging. It presents in brief three of Hall's major concerns-paucity of knowledge of nongeriatric specialists, the need for individualized care of elderly adults, and the prevalence of attitudinal obstacles in medical professionals caring for older persons-to demonstrate how little the language and content of modern appraisals have evolved since 1922. This disconcerting sense of paralysis is presented as an opportunity to advance important questions aimed at stimulating a more-comprehensive research agenda for addressing the future of medical elder care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".