RURAL LIBRARIES AS CONTESTED SPACES OF OLDER VOLUNTARISM IN AGING RURAL COMMUNITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent efforts to better understand voluntarism as fundamental to how rural communities are meeting the challenges of population ageing have highlighted ageing rural volunteers, and the attendant burden of older voluntarism, as key issues for ageing in place of rural residents and ageing rural community sustainability. Drawing on a case study of a volunteer-based rural library in Ontario, Canada, this study examines the experiences of older volunteers, the challenges of sustaining volunteer programs, and the implications of older voluntarism for rural community development. Findings from interviews and focus groups with library volunteers, staff, board members and community stakeholders demonstrate how the experiences of older volunteers and challenges of older voluntarism affect rural community development. The results reveal how participation, well-being, conflict and territoriality associated with older voluntarism contributes to ‘contested spaces of older voluntarism’ whereby older volunteers negotiate their rights and responsibilities associated with ageing and volunteering in rural communities.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".