Algorithmic harms and digital ageism in the use of surveillance technologies in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ageism has not been centered in scholarship on AI or algorithmic harms despite the ways in which older adults are both digitally marginalized and positioned as targets for surveillance technology and risk mitigation. In this translation paper, we put gerontology into conversation with scholarship on information and data technologies within critical disability, race, and feminist studies and explore algorithmic harms of surveillance technologies on older adults and care workers within nursing homes in the United States and Canada. We start by identifying the limitations of emerging scholarship and public discourse on "digital ageism" that is occupied with the inclusion and representation of older adults in AI or machine learning at the expense of more pressing questions. Focusing on the investment in these technologies in the context of COVID-19 in nursing homes, we draw from critical scholarship on information and data technologies to deeply understand how ageism is implicated in the systemic harms experienced by residents and workers when surveillance technologies are positioned as solutions. We then suggest generative pathways and point to various possible research agendas that could illuminate emergent algorithmic harms and their animating force within nursing homes. In the tradition of critical gerontology, ours is a project of bringing insights from gerontology and age studies to bear on broader work on automation and algorithmic decision-making systems for marginalized groups, and to bring that work to bear on gerontology. This paper illustrates specific ways in which important insights from critical race, disability and feminist studies helps us draw out the power of ageism as a rhetorical and analytical tool. We demonstrate why such engagement is necessary to realize gerontology's capacity to contribute to timely discourse on algorithmic harms and to elevate the issue of ageism for serious engagement across fields concerned with social and economic justice. We begin with nursing homes because they are an understudied, yet socially significant and timely setting in which to understand algorithmic harms. We hope this will contribute to broader efforts to understand and redress harms across sectors and marginalized collectives.
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".