MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213432054 · doi:10.1177/08404704221080882

We can do better: Addressing ageism against older adults in healthcare

2022· article· en· W4213432054 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternalismHealth carePandemicPsychologyPublic relationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineLawDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ageism in healthcare is a pervasive reality that leads to negative health outcomes for older adults. While it is often implicit, the COVID-19 pandemic threw explicit age discrimination in healthcare into sharp relief globally. In medicine, ageism translates into myriad forms of age discrimination that impact the provision of ethical care and range from 'micro' individual issues like paternalistic medicine or therapeutic nihilism to 'macro' system issues including barriers to timely and effective healthcare or exclusion from research trials. The culture of ageism in medicine can be unintentionally transmitted through role-modelling and the hidden curriculum. Strategies to combat ageism and provide ethical healthcare include intergenerational learning, educational programs, and strong leadership from organizations to enact policy and practice changes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.326 · 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