Precarity and Ageing: New Perspectives for Social Gerontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This book examines some of the challenges facing older people, given a context of rising life expectancy, cuts to the welfare state, and widening economic and social inequalities. Although cultural representations and policy discourses depict older people as a group healthier and more prosperous than ever, many older people experience ageing amid insecurities that emerge in later life or are carried forward as a consequence of earlier disadvantage. At the same time, responsibility is now placed upon individuals and/or their families to secure support for many of the vulnerabilities associated with old age. The purpose of this book is to examine the potential of a new approach to thinking about the risks facing older people, drawing on debates in the field of ‘precarity’ and ‘precariousness’. This book examines precarity and ageing from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, critical perspectives and contexts. The collection of chapters develops a distinctive approach to understanding the changing cultural, economic and social circumstances that create precarity for different groups of older people. This book explores what insights the concept of precarity might bring to an understanding of ageing across the life course, especially in the context of the radical sociopolitical changes affecting the lives of older people. In doing so, it draws attention to altered forms of ageing, but also to changing social and cultural contexts, and to realities that challenge the assumption that older people will be protected by existing social programmes or whatever resources can be marshalled privately. This chapter sets the foundation for the book, with an exploration of the concept of precarity and its relevance to the field of ageing. It establishes precarity as a lens, or a means, for drawing attention to insecurity and risk in later life. The chapter begins with a discussion of the concept of precarity and precariousness in fields such as geography and labour studies, and how the concept has been applied to ageing and late life. It then poses a series of questions to guide reflection and ground the debates pursued by authors, followed by a brief overview of the chapters ahead.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".