Seniors and Portrayals of Intra-generational and Inter-generational Inequality in the<i>Globe and Mail</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine how seniors are portrayed in the Globe and Mail. Thirty articles published in 2004 were selected and thematically analysed. Seniors were discussed in six different contexts, including family, work/retirement, community networks, scientific studies of population, social and health care policy, and social attitudes to aging. Issues pertaining to seniors were captured in three themes. The theme diversity of seniors made visible seniors of different genders, ages, health statuses, abilities, and needs. The successful aging theme provided positive examples of aging well but marginalized seniors who did not meet these expectations, thereby fostering intra-generational ageism. The apocalyptic demography / inter-generational conflict theme underscored the importance of society's support system for the elderly but raised the issue of inter-generational inequality, of presenting the elderly as a burden on younger persons in families and on society at large. Critical analyses suggested that both negative and positive newspaper portrayals of seniors might be ageist.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".