Canadian power mobility device users' experiences of ageing with mobility impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, we draw upon interviews with 14 men and 15 women aged 51–92 to examine the embodied experiences of Canadian power mobility device users. In particular, we investigate how individuals ageing with mobility impairments perceived and experienced the practical impacts and symbolic cultural connotations of utilising a power mobility device. Our findings reveal that those participants who had begun to use their power mobility devices later in life were dismayed by and apprehensive about the significance of their diminishing physical abilities in the context of the societal privileging of youthful and able bodies. At the same time, the participants who had used a power mobility device from a young age were fearful of prospective bodily declines, and discussed the significance and consequences of being unable to continue to operate their power mobility devices autonomously in the future. We consider the ways in which the participants attempted to manage, mitigate and reframe their experiences of utilising power mobility devices in discriminatory environments. We discuss our findings in relation to on-going theoretical debates pertaining to the concepts of ‘biographical disruption’ and the third and fourth ages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".