Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notions of what it means to age well or successfully are central to social gerontological research and practice. As such, one would expect that there would be consensus as to what the construct of successful aging means and/or how aging well is achieved. This is not, however, the case which is why this study explores the meanings that a group of older people (i.e. some with home-help care and some without) attach to this construct. The empirical material is constituted of 16 semi-structured interviews. The findings bring to fore the different resources (such as physical, mental, psycho-social, spiritual, and financial ones) that are associated with successful aging and the kind of outlook on life that is regarded as useful if one wants to age well. Differences between home-help care recipients and those that do not receive this type of care were found. Those that are managing without the help offered by home-help care services listed more resources and offered more nuanced descriptions of what successful aging means than those that receive home- help care. This suggests that receiving home-help care and/or not being able to manage primarily on one’s own might shape the manner in which older people think about what constitutes a good old age. The in-depth analysis of the notions of successful aging that were brought to the fore suggests also the paradoxical fact that the title of this article attests to; namely that some associate aging well with not aging at all and deem, in fact, the term successful aging to be an oxymoron.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".