Re-spacing and re-placing gerontology: relationality and affect
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper describes how space and place have been understood in gerontology as phenomenon that are both physical and social in character, yet are relatively bounded and static. The argument is posed as to how, following recent developments in human geography, a relational approach might be adopted. Involving a twist in current thinking, this would instead understand space and place each as highly permeable, fluid and networked at multiple scales. Moreover, it is proposed that the concept of ‘affect’ might also be insightful, recognising space and place as being relationally configured and performed, possessing a somatically registered energy, intensity and momentum that precedes deep cognition. Three vignettes illustrate the relationalities and affects in the lives and circumstances of older people, and how focusing more explicitly on them would allow for a richer understanding of where and how they live their lives. The paper closes with some thoughts on future theoretical, methodological and disciplinary considerations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it