Older Adults’ Risk Practices From Hospital to Home: A Discourse Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand risk-related practices of older adults returning home posthospitalization. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative methods informed by critical discourse theory, designed to uncover linkages between broader social practices and peoples' talk and stories, were used. METHODS: Eight older adults, screened as high-risk from an inpatient cardiology unit, and six partners were interviewed face-to-face within three weeks of discharge. A discourse analysis of participants' accounts of risk was conducted: the cultural and social understandings or conceptual frameworks used to understand risk were identified. RESULTS: Ableism, a discourse in our society that privileges abledness, was found to permeate the data. Participants underscored that being abled was normal and being disabled was abnormal. Ableism, as a discourse or conceptual framework, compelled participants to appear and act abled, or to perform "compulsory abledness." That, in turn, produced their responses to risk: a pressure to preserve ableist identities created internal and external tensions related to objects and situations of risk and forced participants to use strategies to diminish and minimize risk. Participants created a new response-a position of "liminality" or in-between-where their accounts portrayed them as neither abled nor disabled. This discourse of liminality allowed them to reconcile tensions associated with risk. IMPLICATIONS: Critical discourse analysis sheds new light on older adults' risk practices. This approach challenges accepted ways of acting and thinking about what constitutes risk and produces possibilities for alternate ways of representing the same reality.
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 | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".