MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140967408 · doi:10.2190/ll3h-vke8-qat1-7m9m

Older Adults' Multiple Stereotypes of Young Adults

2000· article· en· W2140967408 on OpenAlex

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

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyYoung adultSemantic differentialDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the nature of younger adults' attitudes toward older adults has been researched extensively, there are long-neglected questions regarding older adults' views of young adults. In the first phase of this three phase study, community dwelling seniors generated traits they believed characterized young people. In the second phase, a subsample of the original participants sorted the traits into groups that could be found in one and the same young person. Fifteen stereotypes appeared when these results were submitted to hierarchical cluster analysis. In the final phase, a subsample of the original older adult participants rated how typical each of the stereotypes was of younger people. As well, each of the stereotypes were rated using an abbreviated version of Kogan and Wallach's (1961) semantic differential scale. Results indicate that the stereotypes older people hold of younger people are generally more positive than negative. Further, the positive stereotypes are viewed as more typical of younger adults than are the negative stereotypes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · 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