MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974981959 · doi:10.1300/j074v18n02_06

Aging in a Foreign Country: Voices of Iranian Women Aging in Canada

2006· article· en· W1974981959 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farimah Shakeri Shemirani, Deborah O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women & Aging · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationGender studiesPower (physics)IntersectionalityRefugeeAcculturationSociologyMeaning (existential)Identity (music)Isolation (microbiology)PsychologyHistoryAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older Iranian women, who immigrated to Canada in later adulthood, experience unique issues as they age. In order to better understand this experience, in-depth, personal and semi-structured interviews were conducted with five immigrant/refugee Iranian women who immigrated to Canada in their later life. Analysis revealed that although each woman's story conveyed individual differences and idiosyncrasies, all the stories highlighted the critical interweaving of the aging experience and the immigration experience: neither experience could be understood in isolation of the other; each aspect gave meaning to the other experience. Two interrelated messages dominated the women's stories: first was the importance of each woman's immigration story for grounding her experience of the aging process in Canada. Second, each woman's personal story suggested that the immigration experiences were accorded priority for accounting for her experiences in Canada. Specifically, cultural identity (i.e., social class, education, religious affiliation and immigration status) offered a valuable cloak for overshadowing the force of the aging process and the aging process emerged as an elusive force that lurked in the background without ever being fully acknowledged or given power in their lives. The implications of these findings in relation to theory development on intersectionality and professional practice are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women & AgingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207