Precarity in late life: rethinking dementia as a ‘frailed’ old age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches to ageing that are organised around productivity, success, and active late life have contributed to views of dementia as an unsuccessful, failed or 'frailed' old age. Operating through dominant frameworks, socio-cultural constructs and organisational practices, the 'frailties' of the body and mind are often used to mark the boundaries of health and illness in late life, and shape responses accordingly. Our concern is that both the taken for granted and the 'imagined' can further marginalise persons who occupy the locations of dementia and disablement. This article analyses the extent to which frailty and dementia are better understood in the context of new forms of insecurity affecting the life course. Drawing on the concept of 'precarity', this article shifts debates on the 'fourth age' away from age or stage-based thinking, into a recognition of the shared vulnerability and responsibilities for care. The argument of this article is that 'precarity' represents a 'new form of ageing', notably as regards its impact on the upper extremes of the life course. The article concludes with a call for a response that is grounded in an acknowledgement of the fragility and limitations which affect human lives, this requiring grounding in inclusive forms of citizenship.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".