FRAILTY AND PRECARITY: UNTANGLING THE CONCEPTUAL PATHWAYS OF NEED AND DISADVANTAGE IN LATE LIFE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concepts of frailty and precarity circulate in social gerontology and studies of aging, with the former a dominant construct, and the latter emerging as a way of linking experiences, insecurities and risks. Although these concepts are used inter-changeably by some authors, their roots, key areas of focus and meanings differ. This paper considers the state of knowledge on frailty, and sets this against the uses of precarity. A After outlining a recent scoping review on precarity that revealed a high number of articles cross-referencing concepts of frailty and vulnerability. the paper distinguishes key aspects of frailty, vulnerability, and precarity. Situating qualitative experiences of each serves as a means to further explore similarities and differences. The paper concludes with reflections on what (if anything) each of these allied concepts may offer understandings of late life, and in particular, the study of disadvantage across the life course and into late life.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".