WE CAN’T AVOID IT. IT’S THERE! AGEISM EXPERIENCED BY DIVERSE CULTURAL GROUPS IN OTTAWA, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Discrimination based on age is pervasive across Canada. Little is known about the experiences of ageism among diverse cultural groups. The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the perceptions of ageism among culturally diverse older adults in Ottawa, Canada. Methods: Three focus groups were conducted with Chinese, Arab, and Indian older adults in Ottawa in June 2016. An 8-item protocol was developed to guide the discussions. Qualitative data were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding. Results: Twenty-five culturally diverse older adults (9 Chinese, 6 Arab, and 10 Indian) participated in the focus groups. All described personal positive and negative examples of discrimination based on their age without being familiar with the term “ageism”. Several described their experiences with the intersection of age, race, and gender, although these interpretations varied by cultural group. Ageism in the media was also easily recognized. Participants recommended using specific content, communication channels, and organizations to counteract ageism. Discussion: This pilot study helped to illustrate that ageism is a societal problem that requires a societal solution. As Canada’s population becomes older and more diverse, important efforts are needed to raise awareness of ageism.
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) | 0.001 | 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".