A grounded theory study: valuing aging - a model describing gerontological social work career choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the proportion of people in the latter stages of the lifespan increase so will the need for social work services. This grounded theory study explored why some social work students include the option of working with older persons. Fifteen social work students in the provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador were asked the specific question: Why do you, as a social work student, want to work with older adults when you graduate? Constant comparison of data revealed a three-phase process entitled Valuing Aging Model contributing to understanding why some social work students include the option of working with older persons. This process has the potential to be transformative and may occur at any time during the lifespan. The first phase described exposure to, and learning about older persons through a variety of life experiences including family, education, employment, and volunteering. The second phase involved a transcending experience where students were able to analyze knowledge, and psychological and emotional messages they received through developing relationships with older persons, as well as the impacts of life experiences with older persons. The resultant process of self-exploration or discovering of self allowed students to challenge societal beliefs regarding aging and adopt a new way of thinking. The third phase, inclusion, involved acknowledging discrimination, understanding vulnerability and coming to include all people, including older persons, as part of a decision making process. Included is a discussion of trustworthiness incorporating credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of this study. In conclusion, this study contributes to a growing body of knowledge explaining gerontological career choice and may contribute to attitudinal change supporting a paradigm shift where all stages of the lifespan be considered as desirable practice areas.
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 | 0.039 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".