Ageism among psychology students: A comparative analysis between Belgium and Quebec (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".