“All they do is walk”: Successful aging and symbolic boundaries among a self-organized mall walkers club
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: This study examines how successful aging discourse manifests through physical and social participation among members of a self-organized mall walkers club. There is a paucity of research investigating successful aging in situ and theorizing the relationship between successful aging discourse and community participation. I draw on symbolic boundaries—a concept from cultural sociology—as a way to make sense of what mall walkers say and do. Methods: I draw on data from 15 months of participant observations and interviews of mall walkers, all of whom are over 65 and predominantly Caribbean-Canadian women Results: I identify three common boundaries: personal, interpersonal, and community, that mall walkers draw on to challenge narratives of decline and internalize dimensions of successful aging. Discussion: These findings uncover the ways members in a self-organized community reinforce boundaries that highlight how certain dimensions of successful aging as something to be proud of and desirable. This article contributes to research on intersubjective experiences of aging by revealing how successful aging is rooted in community participation, rather than individual achievement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".