Stories of contemporary aging: An analysis of “lived” citizenship in later life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new political economy of aging portrays "active citizenship" among seniors as a key challenge for the years to come. As a policy framework, Active Aging ranks high on the agendas of most supranational bodies. Informed by discourse analysis and a narrative approach, this article focuses on, first, older women's everyday "active" practices, their meaning, and purpose and second, their day-to-day practical citizenship and social engagement experiences. A typology consisting of four figures of "lived" citizenship is proposed. Social contribution in later age is expressed through various types of engagement identified through these citizenship figures. These figures support older women's social anchoring and sustain their feeling of belonging to the community. However, the figures outlined also reveal tensions, produced by relations of power between "dominant citizenship" and "relational citizenship," pertaining to social relations and to caring for the other. In the latter case, we see that the coupling of action between the choice of action and social engagements in later age is more limited, due to social and health inequalities as well as lack of opportunities throughout the life course. Finally, in order to guarantee the right to age with dignity, we suggest a change of orientation in aging policies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".