North American and International Students’ Perspectives on Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ageism is recognized around the world as detrimental to older adults’ health and well-being, and there are differences in how cultures view older adults. Infrequently are ageist attitudes among cultures compared within one study. Here, we sought to examine views on older adults across cultures in a sample of university students attending school in North America (n=31). As part of a larger survey of ageist attitudes, we conducted a thematic analysis on open-ended responses to the question “How are older adults viewed in your culture?” Half of the respondents were international students. Results found similarities and differences between groups. First, both groups saw older adults as individuals who are and should be respected. Second, however, North American students viewed older adults as “important” and “role models”, whereas international students viewed older adults as “leaders” of and at the “head of the family”. Third, North American students saw older adults as “needing extra help.” In contrast, international students reported that families “should provide care” as a duty or responsibility. Fourth, North American students believed older adults provide “wisdom,” “love,” and “support” but the international students felt older adults provided knowledge, experience, and opinions that are valued by the family and society that are important to decision making. Finally, North American students describe negative perceptions and experiences with older adults, which was completely absent from the international students responses. Results are discussed in a cultural context of personal and formal relationships with elders.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".