Older women and their representations of old age: a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article we shall be analysing the representations of old age and ageing made by three generations of older women with different life stories (single, married, children and childless). Our principal findings, based on a qualitative analysis of 25 in-depth interviews conducted with three generations of older women (65–74, 75–84 and 85 and older), mainly reveal their reluctance and even refusal to define themselves as ‘older or elderly women’, largely due to persistent stereotypes linking old age to dependency, social isolation and fragility. Aware of the social prejudice regarding women and old age, they reject it unanimously. Older women represent a challenge to these homogenising preconceptions of old age, which they, on the contrary, experience in a multitude of ways, often enjoyable. Their conceptions of ‘ageing well’ are diverse and do not correspond to a clinical definition of ageing. Their representations of ‘ageing well’ and of ageing express positive values of autonomy, independence, consistency and integrity, maintenance of physical and intellectual health, and being socially active so they can ‘stay in the swing of things’, in the continuum of their lives and future projects, rather breaking with contemporary life or existing on the margins of society.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".