From Margin to Center: Intersectionality and the Politics of Environmental Gerontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the population becomes increasingly older and culturally diverse, so too does the need for critical scholarship that examines the complex lives of differently positioned older adults in relation to their social and physical ecologies. This innovative symposium reflects the importance of putting intersectional frameworks (Collins & Bilge, 2016) in conversation with environmental gerontology to critically examine structures of power in assessing who matters and who benefits from place-based initiatives that intend to support healthy aging (Phillipson, 2004). Perry et al.’s paper addresses the politics of responsibility, asking who is responsible for keeping older people safe in light of Covid-19 though a citywide senior housing coalition in Detroit. The second paper, authored by Johnson, speaks to the politics of access and structural inequalities that create disparities in end-of-life care for unhoused older adults. The third and fourth papers, by Stinchcombe and colleagues and Oswald, critically examine dominant paradigms of age-friendliness in Canada and the United States though a politics of representation that highlights who is (in)visible in these initiatives. The final paper by Reyes, on the civic participation of Latinx and African American older adults, illustrates how structural change cannot happen without engaging these populations in the political process. Together, these papers exemplify the politics of environmental gerontology and demonstrate that without acknowledgment of multi-layered identities and the structures contributing to their inequities, environmental gerontology is inadequate, as it may overlook important social and environmental factors that connect older people to the places where they live and die.
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 | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.129 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".