Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To understand ageing well, one needs to study not only those who are ageing but also the places within and with which people are ageing. In the past, much ageing‐well research has been focused on ensuring individuals have the “right” resources and are engaged in the “best” types of activities. However, recent theorizing has prompted the study of ageing well as a process of making sense of self amid later‐life changes. Building on Rowles' attachment‐to‐place work, the purpose of this paper is to consider how the “thick concreteness” of place influences later‐life meaning making. Design/methodology/approach This is a theoretical paper on ageing. Findings The paper draws on Casey's phenomenological conceptualization of places as imprinting themselves on bodies and selves, much as humans shape the places they inhabit. Data from interviews with older rural women in western Canada illustrates how this conceptualization can enhance understanding of ageing well relative to place as a physical, socio‐cultural and temporal phenomenon. In a place that has been depicted as inhospitable, participants have chosen to stay even as practically invisible kin and community “keepers” on the “frontier”. Originality/value This original paper suggests that to age well is to age locally and to make sense not only for self about self and one's own ageing but also for ageing in mutually compatible ways in that place.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".