Moving Toward the Promise of Participatory Engagement of Older Adults in Gerotechnology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited uptake and use of developed technologies by older adults have prompted interest in participatory design and related approaches in the gerotechnology field. Despite this, recent systematic reviews suggest that researchers continue to passively engage older adults in research projects, often only providing advice or feedback in the early or later phases of research. A key barrier to more meaningful and active engagement of older adults is a lack of understanding as to how participatory design differs from other participatory approaches, and in particular, participatory action research. We address this gap in understanding by exploring the theoretical similarities and differences of participatory design and participatory action research, including their scope, goals, and the nature of the involvement of older adults in each. We conclude with key barriers that are critical to address in order to achieve greater involvement of older adults in gerotechnology and to broaden and enrich the goals of this field.
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 | 0.231 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".