Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Dans cet article, nous examinons les recherches socioculturelles existantes et la théorie concernant le corps vieillissant. En particulier, nous examinons l’image du corps et la littérature de l’incarnation et discutons de ce qui est connu de la façon dont les aînés perçoivent et sentent l’expérience de leur corps vieillissants. Nous analysons comment l’image du corps est influencée par l’âge, la culture, l’origine ethnique, le sexe, l’état de santé, les préferences sexuelles, et la classe sociale. En outre, nous avons élaboré de façon critique la littérature comme mode de réalisation qui a trait aux expériences de la maladie, la sexualité, la gestion quotidienne du corps vieillissante, le travail avec l’apparence et l’identité incarnée. En présentant les principales conclusions, les débats théoriques, et les divergences de fond qui sont présentes dans la recherche et dans la théorie de l’image corporelle et l’incarnation, nous avons identifié les lacunes dans la littérature et avons prévu des axes d’enquête requises à l’avenir.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".