RECOGNIZING AND RESPONDING TO LOSS AND ‘RUPTURE’ IN OLDER WOMEN'S ACCOUNTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current context of service, emphasis on the body and impairment mean that emotional experiences are given little space within public health and social care services. Further, as much of what occurs between worker and client remains unsaid, older women's subjective interpretations become more and more difficult to hear in the current context of care. This is especially the case when the age difference of the older women and their workers are considered. In this paper, I focus on how particular types of time‐based statements embedded within older women's narratives on ‘frailty’ can be read around rupture and loss. Drawing attention to these statements highlights the importance of close listening and working therapeutically from the discursive clues of lived experience. Overall, older women's accounts teach us that providing the space to articulate difficult emotions is crucial to fostering connections across age and generational boundaries and allowing older women to articulate their own ‘successful’ responses to the challenges of late life. At the same time, recognizing and accounting for the experiences of loss also forms a strong counter‐perspective to the rational–technical practices increasingly used in Canadian health and social care practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".