MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188787660 · doi:10.26686/pq.v10i3.4502

Age discrimination in the workplace

2014· article· en· W2188787660 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

VenuePolicy Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAge discriminationCommissionMythologyWork (physics)Age groupsOlder peopleGerontologyPsychologyMedicineDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyLawHistoryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age discrimination is often cited as a barrier to participation in work by older people, and the workplace provides the most common grounds for complaints of this nature. Age discrimination predominantly affects older rather than younger groups (although the latter are not exempt), and is often based on myths and stereotyped attitudes about older people and older workers which can be easily refuted (Davey, 2007; Alpass and Mortimer, 2007; Gray and McGregor, 2003). Age discrimination as an issue in the workplace is not new. It was well documented in Janice Burns’ literature review on mature workers for the Department of Work and Income in 2001 (Burns, 2001) and by Justina Murray in her review of age discrimination in employment, commissioned by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission in 2002 (Murray, 2002). In 2006 the EEO Trust’s Work and Age Survey Report showed that 31% of respondents had experienced age discrimination at work (EEO Trust, 2006).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.288 · 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