Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book and the series it launches arises from a unique collaboration between more than 200 researchers and the widest possible range of non-academic stakeholders in the field of ageing research. The nine-year New Dynamics of Ageing (NDA) Research Programme was funded by five UK Research Councils covering the arts and humanities, biological sciences, engineering, social sciences and medical research. It therefore brought together researchers from every major discipline with an interest in ageing. This was intentional because the NDA Programme was the UK's first major research initiative in the ageing field to attempt to embrace all of the relevant disciplines. The primary intention of this chapter is to outline the objectives and contents of the Programme, as an essential backcloth to the subsequent chapters. This chapter also identifies significant changes taking place in the field of gerontological science. It is not claimed that these stem directly from the NDA Programme but, rather, that the Programme was both a reflection of the shifting scientific context as well as a source of further stimulation to the changes already under way. The key elements of this emergent new science of ageing are multi-disciplinarity, user engagement and knowledge exchange. The life course perspective and an increasing recognition of inequalities and diversities in ageing are also important aspects of the new approach. Finally, this chapter explains the process that produced this book and introduces the main chapters. The starting point is the NDA Programme. The New Dynamics of Ageing Research Programme The NDA Programme was the first of its kind: a multi-disciplinary collaboration between five UK Research Councils. At the beginning, in April 2005, there were four Research Councils behind the programme: the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC). A year later the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) joined in as a co-funder of the Programme. Later, in 2008, the Canadian Institute of Aging (part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research) also became a co-funding partner in the Programme as 10 new projects were linked to existing UK ones. The NDA Programme was established with the aims of understanding the new dynamics of ageing, the various influences shaping them and their implications for individuals and society.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".