MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506743560 · doi:10.1057/9780230299115_6

The Prism of Age: Managing Age Diversity in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace

2011· book-chapter· en· W2506743560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcie Pitt‐Catsouphes, Christina Matz‐Costa, Melissa Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforcePrismDiversity (politics)Demographic economicsAge discriminationDemographyGeographyAge groupsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthLabour economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increases in older adults’ labour force participation rates have resulted in a workforce that is ‘more grey’ than it was at the turn of the millennium (see Chapter 2 for workforce ageing statistics). Between 1997 and 2007, the labour force participation rates of adults who were aged 55–64 years increased from 49.6 per cent to 57.1 per cent in Canada, from 41.1 per cent to 51.3 per cent in Germany, and from 54.1 per cent to 61.8 per cent in the United States (OECD 2009a). This extended labour force attachment among older adults reflects a set of new economic realities, emergent priorities of today’s 50+ age group and altered expectations for the productive roles that different societies around the world are setting for older adults, including continued participation in paid employment. (Morrow-Howell et al. 2009)

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207