The 20th Century: Looking Back at the Ambiance of Aging From the Perspective of Age-Specific Journals and Periodicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word "aging" is fraught with nuance, both positive and negative. The purpose of this article is to describe the results of a preliminary exploration of the ambiance of the concept of aging in the United States as seen from the perspective of periodical literature from the past century. A convenience sample of professional journals and lay periodicals concerned with aging and the issues of aging was selected as the focus for this investigation. Specifically, volume one, number one of the selected journals was examined with regard to the date of the first publication, the table of contents, and the first issue editorial or articles in the first volume describing the motivation for the introduction of the journal. Findings indicated that as the century progressed and the study of aging took form, the focus shifted from how to manage the problems of aging to: (a) how to promote healthier young adult lifestyles to increase the chances of a healthy old age, (b) how to continue to maintain older adults' health and therefore, increase the life expectancy for those people older than age 65, and (c) how older adults contribute to the well-being of society. The longevity of the human species, as well as the increasing size of the aging population is a new phenomenon, the ramifications of which are difficult to predict. However, as the emotional tone of the journals in the latter quarter of the century gradually became more positive, it was apparent that consideration was being given to the idea that this phenomenon could be a positive force in the collective growth of humanity.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".