MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2339474657 · doi:10.1353/cja.2006.0016

Barry D. McPherson. Aging as a Social Process: Canadian Perspectives (4th ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2004.

2005· article· en· W2339474657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Wister

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulation ageingHuman sexualityContext (archaeology)Diversity (politics)GerontologySociologyPopulationLife course approachGender studiesPsychologySocial psychologyHistoryMedicineAnthropologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book by Barry McPherson is the fourth edition of Canada's first textbook on aging. Aging as a Social Process is a comprehensive text that elucidates and links the physiological, psychological, and social domains of aging within the context of what are known as individual and population aging. As the title implies, the book focuses primarily on the social processes of aging embedded in the micro-, meso-, and macro-level environments. It therefore balances individual-level experiences and social-structural forces connected to the causes and consequences of aging. It has been updated and expanded to reflect the increasing diversity in aging and the aged and the concomitant growth in research. This is captured through the integration of theory, research, and policy, from multiple perspectives and methodologies, applied to a wider range of substantive issues than in previous editions of the text. For instance, Aboriginal people and aging, homelessness, dating and sexuality, gay and lesbian relationships, end-of-life care, home care, and older drivers are but a few of the topics added or significantly supplemented in this new edition. In particular, I found the inclusion of a chapter dealing with individual and population health a needed and welcome addition. A life-course perspective on these topics that embraces the multiplicity of experience as individuals move through life stages, exposed to different historical and cultural contexts and facing and creating different life choices and chances, connects the material presented in this text.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.009

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→