A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESILIENCE IN TWO COHORTS OF OLDER, SINGLE WOMEN IN RURAL AUSTRALIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian rural women are stereotypically perceived as stoic, self-reliant, and used to handling adversity. An ethnographic study conducted in rural Australia identified the developmental trajectories, responses, and profiles of resilience in two cohorts of older, single women living independently in the community: older old widows (aged 80 years and above) who were long-term ‘locals’; and newcomers–late middle-aged (55 to 65 years of age) divorcees relocating from the city. The older old women portrayed a predominantly passive reaction to crises and adversity throughout their adulthood, focused on bouncing back to regain equilibrium. By contrast, the late middle-aged women’s response to personal and social disruptions was actively reactive, until they elected to restart their lives in the town. Moving to the town triggered a shift in the resilience responses of both groups of women: over time, the older old women pragmatically adjusted to their changed circumstances, whereas the late middle-aged women were isolated by an unfamiliar and unwelcoming local culture, and ultimately withdrew. For the majority of the older old women, the town’s sociocultural norms and expectations limited their personal and social choices, and boxed them in. For them, resilience in later life is acquiescence. Concomitantly, the late middle-aged women were systematically excluded from fully participating and contributing to the community, and thus boxed out by these constraints. For these women, resilience equates to endurance. This finding contradicts the almost universal conception of resilience as a proactive, agentic, and positive construct in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".