MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127576020 · doi:10.1353/cja.2005.0004

Theorizing about Aging Well: Constructing a Narrative

2005· article· en· W2127576020 on OpenAlex
Sherry Ann Chapman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeMeaning (existential)NegotiationEpistemologySuccessful agingRelation (database)Process (computing)SociologyPsychologyNarrative inquiryConceptual frameworkPeriod (music)Conceptual blendingSocial psychologyAestheticsComputer scienceSocial scienceCognitionLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging well is new, again. The recent interest is part of a 50-year period of research. Contradictory conceptualizations of aging well create an opportunity to consider assumptions that underlie the concept. In this paper, through the construction of an aging-well, theorizing narrative, an underlying assumption is identified in past aging-well conceptual frameworks: to age well is to achieve self-integration in relation to particular sets of resources or forms of engagement. The narrative relates how more recent aging-well theorizing is being shaped by a growing interest in later life meaning-making. Evidence is presented of a contemporary shift toward describing aging well as the negotiation of the co-construction and reconstruction of multiple selves in an ongoing, open-ended process of meaning-making amid later-life events and transitions. The paper concludes with implications for future research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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