An Assessment of Attendee Experiences With a Workshop to Reframe Aging-Related Communications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2018, the Centre on Aging at the University of Manitoba adapted the FrameWorks Institute’s Gaining Momentum toolkit into an interactive workshop that was delivered to aging-related stakeholders (e.g., health professionals, educators, researchers, advocates, older persons) across the province of Manitoba, Canada. The purpose of this study was to complete a qualitative assessment of attendee experiences with the workshop and its impact, if any, on their aging-related communication behaviours. Study participants completed two telephone interviews—one approximately two weeks and one approximately three months post-workshop—about their workshop experiences, motivations for attending, and short and long-term communication goal setting. Through the interviews, most participants expressed positive experiences with the workshop content, as well as an enjoyment of its interactive elements (e.g., self-introduction activity, reframing short and long form aging-related communications, group feedback). Several also shared specific examples of how workshop content was influencing their short/long-term aging communication strategies. Some participants, however, also identified ways that local culture could impact the interpretation of and, thus, potential success of workshop language and/or framing recommendations in specific communities. Overall, the findings from this study suggest that the Gaining Momentum workshop was a valuable experience for attendees that inspired critical assessment of, and changes to, the ways they communicated about aging in their professional and personal lives. Future research is warranted to explore the ways its content could be adapted to better meet the unique communication considerations within the province of Manitoba (e.g., cultural, geographic, and language-related implications).
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 | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".