THE MANY FORMS OF AGEISM: AGE DIFFERENCES IN EXPERIENCE TYPE, EMOTIONAL IMPACT, AND COPING STRATEGIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young, middle-aged, and older adults described a personal experience with ageism, rated the emotional impact, and reported strategies they used to cope with the situation and with ageism experiences in general. Domain and content of the experience differed by age group in ways that were consistent with a person’s stage in life. Young and middle-aged participants reported experiencing ageism most frequently in the workplace, whereas older adults reported ageism from service workers. Within the workplace, young adults reported facing assumptions of incompetence, whereas middle-aged adults reported experiencing less respect. Consistent with emotion regulation literature, older adults reported a less negative emotional response to ageism compared to young and middle-aged adults. When asked about coping strategies, all participants reported acceptance of the specific experience they shared. In response to ageism in general, older adults reported accepting the ageist action, whereas young and middle-aged adults coped by being dismissive of the perpetrator.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".