Participation of People With Impairments in Seniors’ Organizations: Conditions and Limitations on Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While older adults' social participation has attracted sustained attention, the realities faced by seniors with impairments in this area are still understudied. Social representations are formed from socially constructed opinions regarding a given object and have four functions (knowledge, identity, orientation, justification). The purpose of this article is to document the social representations that exist within seniors' organizations regarding participation by older people with impairments. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, an exploratory sequential design was applied. First, a qualitative phase involved meetings with five focus groups to explore how participants would manage difficult situations in which the inclusion of an older person with impairments must be addressed. Second, a quantitative phase consisted of a questionnaire administered to 86 respondents to examine the components of social representations about the participation of older people with impairments. RESULTS: Results show that, although research participants acknowledge that all seniors have the right to participate, this right confronts a collective identity infused with aging model that demands a youthful, "un-disabled" appearance and activities. In terms of the orientation function, making participation a reality is seen as relying on the efforts of people with impairments, but when there is a failure of inclusiveness, the reasons offered to justify it concern the resources available, rather than possible prejudices. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Interpretation of the results leads to recommendations for both implementing an inclusion philosophy and practices in seniors' organizations and revisiting the view of impairment in old age as otherness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".