MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096765252 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnt116

Symposium: Popular Literature on Aging

2013· article· en· W2096765252 on OpenAlexaff
Debra Sheets, M. M. Gullette, Phoebe S. Liebig, Jon Hendricks, Daniela K. O’Neill, Kate de Medeiros

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a child, I often was caught reading under the bed covers with a flashlight. My appreciation for elegantly crafted writing and a good story well told has never diminished. Although my habit of reading late into the night continues, these days I am dismayed by the preponderance of academic reading in the stacks beside my bed and the dwindling amount of fiction I read. Quite frankly, I hope this review symposium will incite in all of us a modest scholarly rebellion to create room for literary reading in our private and professional lives. My argument is simple—reading books that engage our emotions and our imaginations can enhance the quality of our personal lives, improve our teaching, and inspire our research. This review brings to your attention current and/or award-winning novels that offer aging perspectives, and we hope you will consider their value for learning about aging. The invited reviewers include several well-regarded gerontologists with humanistic leanings, a cultural critic focusing on aging in comparative literature, and a geriatrician who writes an acclaimed blog on aging and health. Interestingly, given the feminization of aging, the central character in each of the books selected is a man. Gilead, however, is written by a woman, and three of the reviewers are women, so perhaps the gender mix in this symposium is more equal in that way. The life review process, theorized as normative by Butler (1963) some 40 years ago, and the issues of ego integrity in the work of Erik Erikson, is a key theme in four of the books. The critical nature of summing up the quality and consistency of the totality of one’s life is a risky endeavor as we see in Everyman and also in The Sense of an Ending. In Gilead and Simon’s Night, the review process and construction of self and meaning result in a sense of coherence and continuity and some resolution to conflicts and regrets. In contrast, the Hundred-Year-Old Man has no time for review—he is too busy dealing with the present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.021

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207