MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097052969 · doi:10.1093/geronb/57.6.p540

The Activation of Aging Stereotypes in Younger and Older Adults

2002· article· en· W2097052969 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison L. Chasteen, Norbert Schwarz, D. C. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCenter for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignNational Institute on AgingSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCenter for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
KeywordsPsychologyTraitValence (chemistry)Stimulus (psychology)Developmental psychologyYoung adultSuccessful agingOlder peopleClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The activation of ageism and aging stereotypes in younger and older adults was investigated by manipulating both the valence and the stereotypicality of trait stimuli. Participants completed a lexical decision task in which the stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between the prime and target stimuli were varied to examine the effects of automatic and controlled processing (300 and 2,000 ms, respectively). Both younger and older adults demonstrated strong stereotype activation for elderly stereotypes but relatively weak activation for young stereotypes. Both younger and older adults also demonstrated a positive bias toward older people, which was not moderated by SOA. These findings suggest that younger and older adults do not differ in their accessibility to aging stereotypes or to their age-based biases, which appear to be positive toward elderly people.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations133
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207