MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200080193 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.213

Age, Attitudes to Aging, and Identity in Older Canadian Women

2021· article· en· W4200080193 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicky J. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Life course approachSense of agencyPersonal identityIdentity (music)PsychologyAgency (philosophy)Successful agingSocial psychologySocial identity theoryIdentity formationGerontologyInterdependenceSelf-conceptDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial groupMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The life course perspective emphasizes social structure, personal agency, and their interdependencies (Settersten et al., 2020), serving as the theoretical framework for this study. Given stereotypical societal views of gender and aging (e.g., Sontag, 1979), physical aging is often the focus when examining women’s aging attitudes and concomitant changes in a sense of personal identity. Additionally, studies of midlife women have found relationships between age and identity (e.g., Stewart et al., 2001). Using quantitative and qualitative data, the present study examines associations between age, personal identity, and attitudes to physical, psychological and social aging in older Canadian women (N = 190, Mage = 70.38). Results show that while attitudes to physical aging contribute to identity maintenance, attitudes to social and psychological aging are also important for older women’s identity maintenance. Interactions between age and attitudes to aging associated with personal identity are discussed with reference to the life course perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207