Exploring potential prejudice toward older adult mobility device users.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many older adults require assistive technology to maintain mobility (e.g., canes, walkers, wheelchairs, or scooters), but concerns about experiencing prejudice because of mobility devices can deter use. We explore this potential prejudice in a sample recruited through online crowdsourcing. Overall, prejudice toward older adult mobility device users was not observed. Older adult mobility device users were evaluated more positively than common prejudice target groups. However, heightened prejudice toward older adult mobility device users was observed among those higher in authoritarianism or social dominance orientation. This was explained by perceptions that older adult mobility device users are a greater threat to resources (e.g., health care spending, time, attention) among those higher in these qualities. This pattern was present at all ages assessed but was stronger for those who were younger versus older. Relationships between ideology and heightened threat from older adult mobility device users were not present for those older than 60 years of age. Our results demonstrate that concerns about this prejudice are not completely unwarranted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".