MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300961860 · doi:10.1177/14614448221127261

Exploring data ageism: What good data can(’t) tell us about the digital practices of older people?

2022· article· en· W4300961860 on OpenAlexafffund
Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, Line Grenier

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsDisadvantagedPoliticsAge discriminationOfficial statisticsPower (physics)European unionOpen dataSociologyPolitical scienceStatisticsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering that data are no stranger to politics and power, we argue that it may well be a site of age-based discrimination. We discuss how older people are described and, at times, disregarded in the analysis of digitisation and how those partial descriptions bring about challenges in the study of digital practices throughout life. We propose the notion of data ageism to conceptualise the production and reproduction of the disadvantaged status of old age caused by decisions concerning how to collect and deliver whose data. We exemplify this concept by examining data produced by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, which offers high-quality statistics on digitisation, but no data on individuals aged 75 years and over.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.158 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Media & SocietySame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207