MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287404404 · doi:10.3917/anpsy1.224.0589

Ageism among psychology students: A comparative analysis between Belgium and Quebec (Canada)

2022· preprint· fr· W4287404404 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Manon Marquet, Guillaume T. Vallet, Stéphane Adam, Pierre Missotten

Bibliographic record

VenueL’Année psychologique · 2022
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude visait à évaluer les attitudes âgistes chez les étudiants en psychologie qui sont, potentiellement, de futurs professionnels de la santé. Cette étude visait également à examiner si les attitudes des étudiants québécois étaient plus favorables que les attitudes des étudiants belges. Le Québec est en effet engagé dans différentes initiatives favorables aux aînés qui peuvent promouvoir différents facteurs socio-économiques associés à des attitudes plus positives envers eux. Un total de 236 étudiants en psychologie (81 Belges et 155 Québécois) ont répondu à différents questionnaires mesurant leurs attitudes. Les étudiants québécois exprimaient en effet des attitudes globalement moins négatives envers les aînés. Étant donné que les attitudes négatives peuvent influencer le choix de travailler avec des personnes âgées et entraîner des conséquences néfastes dans le contexte de l’évaluation et de soin, nous discutons différentes pistes visant à améliorer ces attitudes.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.248 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL’Année psychologiqueSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207