Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, we have a life expectancy that earlier eras could not have dreamed of. An aging population is the hallmark of a successful society. How is it, then, that we consider one of the greatest achievements of society to be a disaster? This talk argues that the beliefs underlying ageism, based on the premise that all old people are the same, pervade contemporary thinking. Despite the fact that becoming old involves physical changes, aging has a significant social component. This presentation marks the culmination of 25 years of qualitative research in gerontology. Given the theme of the conference, the talk begins by discussing how the Trojan horse of positivist approaches is eroding the inductive nature of qualitative research. It then illustrates, based on inductive, interpretive research, how we learn to be old and accept myths associated with aging through the way people treat us.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".