MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079308528 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800015233

Sociology of Aging in Canada: Issues for the Millennium

2001· article· en· W2079308528 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neena L. Chappell, Margaret J. Penning

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPopulation ageingLife course approachPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Social securityInequalityHealth carePublic policySociological theorySocial inequalityPopulationPositive economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomicsSocial psychologyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a selective review of sociological gerontology in Canada, examining where it has been, where it is, and where it could go in the future in four general areas: inequality, population aging and the social construction of crisis; family relations and caregiving; work, retirement and income security; and health, health care systems, and health policy. This review suggests that the sociology of aging has not differentiated itself by the topic studied or by its applied and empirical focus, but rather in its unique perspective that reveals the importance of social structures for the personal and private experience of aging. In doing so, sociological gerontology rejects deterministic assumptions ofinevitability. The importance of relating the personal to the public and of continuing a critical examination of existing trends will continue into the future. An additional challenge will be the generation ofnew knowledge on how to transform institutions so that they better enhance the quality oflife ofseniors, including the identification of support of family structures and community environments, as well as more appropriate health and income security policies. This also includes research on effective and appropriate means of introducing new structures and implementing new policies and programs within the context of current social institutions.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207