Rethinking the Applied: Public Gerontology, Global Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of “public social science” has emerged in recent academic literature. Advocates describe it as a renewed scholar activism aimed at reigniting academia’s social consciousness and direct engagement with pressing social issues and causes. While the authors acknowledge that gerontology already possesses an applied focus that includes concerted and practical efforts for welfare and justice, they add that any “public gerontology” would have to go one step further by engaging with issues on the international stage, and that impact significantly on the world’s least advantaged peoples and places. As an illustration, they focus on the crisis of African grandmothers raising AIDS orphans. They describe the severity of the situation, the work of agencies, and some possible approaches for gerontologists in supportive activism and research. These, they contend, might also be used in other geographical and social contexts.
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 | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.134 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".