Attitudes to aging: a comparison of obituaries in Canada and the U.K.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Populations worldwide are aging and the overall prevalence of dementia at death is now 30%. Since the contemporary social impact of a disease is indicated by the frequency of its newspaper coverage and since obituary notices illuminate conceptions of death, we hypothesized that obituary notices placed by families would reflect societal attitudes to aging and dementia. METHODS: We undertook critical discourse analysis of obituaries in representative national and local newspapers in Canada and the U.K. RESULTS: In the 799 obituaries studied, chronological age, suggested donations in memory of the deceased, and donations to dementia charities were each included in significantly more obituaries in Canadian newspapers than in U.K. ones. Military service was explicit for significantly more men aged > or = 80 years in Canada compared to the U.K. (41% versus 4%; p < 0.05). Of the donations to medical charities, nearly half (n = 117) were to cancer charities and one-fifth (54) to heart and stroke foundations. In the U.K., obituaries for those aged > or = 70 years were more likely to recommend donations to children's charities (n = 12) or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution than dementia charities. CONCLUSIONS: Donations to dementia charities were significantly more common in obituaries in Canada than in the U.K. In both countries, donations to medical charities did not reflect disease prevalence or impact to the individual. Societal attitudes in the U.K. may be impacted by the fragmentation of aging research and antipathy to geriatric medicine in the national medical press.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".