Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to make a philosophical contribution to debates about meaningful sociocultural narratives about aging. It is argued that the moral-philosophical discourse of authenticity may provide valuable resources for counter narratives about later life that are capable of challenging the dominant stereotyping decline- and age-defying cultural narratives. The discussion will draw on classical and contemporary views of authenticity by Rousseau; existentialists such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger; and contemporary thinkers such as Taylor and Meyers. Authenticity discourse is argued to be capable of, on the one hand, acknowledging the positive potentials of growth and development that later life may harbor, while, on the other hand, providing support for recognizing and integrating the inevitable existential vulnerability and finitude that old age also confronts us with. Although authenticity is not a commonly used term in gerontology, some examples show how a language associated with this philosophical discourse has found its way into gerontological thought as well, supporting its relevance for the context of aging. The article concludes with a discussion of four aspects through which the authenticity discourse may contribute to viable cultural narratives about later life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".