MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160985862 · doi:10.5195/aa.2013.19

Retirement Abroad as Women’s Aging Strategy

2013· article· en· W2160985862 on OpenAlexaff
Liesl L. Gambold

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropology & Aging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomHomelandBoomPopulation ageingPolitical scienceEconomic growthPopulationDevelopment economicsMedicineEconomicsPoliticsEngineeringEnvironmental healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the culture and lifestyle choices of retirees has never been so crucial. The aging baby boom population bubble means that by 2030 eighteen percent of the U.S. will be 65 or over. The lifestyle decisions of these individuals will have far-reaching implications culturally, politically and economically. Since more women are living their post-retirement lives alone and in economically challenging situations, this paper examines the mobility of older women in the form of international retirement migration as a strategy to ameliorate levels of economic and general well-being. Historically people have retired abroad for various reasons, but current practices suggest that retiring permanently in a foreign country has become an increasingly popular aging strategy. Retiring abroad does not come without serious challenges, however, as the strains of navigating the aging process are interwoven with living in a foreign culture. Based on research done in Mexico, and southern France, this paper highlights the efforts put forth by aging women to avoid the well-trodden path of retirement before them and to forge a new path, choose a new homeland, and perhaps, reinvent themselves a bit along the way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.351
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropology & AgingSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207