MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053586823 · doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.3.218

Looking to the Future: How Possible Aged Selves Influence Prejudice Toward Older Adults

2006· article· en· W2053586823 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Cognition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySalience (neuroscience)Prejudice (legal term)Perspective (graphical)Young adultDevelopmental psychologyAffect (linguistics)Social identity theoryIdentity (music)Social psychologyExpression (computer science)Social groupCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ageism is thought to be a unique form of prejudice due to the fact that humans change age group memberships as they age and grow old. The current research investigated how increasing the salience of their future aged selves would affect young adults' expressions of prejudice toward older adults. Taking a social identity approach, we hypothesized that young adults' identification with their current age group would moderate the effects of a future self exercise on ageism. In two studies, strongly identified young adults expressed less positive attitudes toward older adults after writing about themselves at 70, perhaps because thoughts of aged selves were threatening to them. Conversely, the future self exercise increased positive attitudes among weakly identified young adults in Study 2. Study 2 also demonstrated the effects of imagining a future self to be distinct from the effects of a perspective–taking exercise. The role of future social identity concerns in the expression of ageism is 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.305 · 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