Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anybody familiar with Simone de Beauvoir's book, La Vieillesse (Old Age, 1970), or the English version entitled The Coming of Age (1972), is also aware that a bold tour de force by one of the world's great critical writers has been neglected by feminists, humanists, gerontologists, historians, and philosophers alike.Comparisons to Beauvoir's influential The Second Sex abound because where that text became a universal anchor of the feminist canon, The Coming of Age seemed more peripheral than central and unknown to the many students who handily quote The Second Sex as second nature.In an interview, Beauvoir was asked if she thought her book "will do for the elderly what The Second Sex did for women."She answered, "Yes, that's what I envisioned.I wanted to think about [the subject of] aging in all of its aspects the way I did [the subject of] woman" ("This Site's").So what happened?Several writers, such as Roberta Maierhofer, claim that the book's neglect reflected a general feminist neglect of aging.Concerned with the challenges and injustices of young to mid-life issues, feminist research seemed to have little patience with Beauvoir's ambivalent reflections on growing older.Furthermore, where feminists did engage with the book, they also criticized its preoccupation with the aging experiences of older men or what Silvia Stoller terms its "gender-indifferent" focus (6).And while it is true that Beauvoir never discusses The Second Sex in The Coming of Age, neither has the task of drawing out her obvious parallels between ageism and sexism, nor the myths of "woman" and "old age" (see Weiss) been taken up by others.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".