Ambient ageism: Exploring ageism in acoustic representations of older adults in AgeTech advertisements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ageing-in-place environments are increasingly marked by ambient digital technologies designed to keep older adults safe while they live independently at home. These AgeTech companies market their products by constructing imagined visual and aural worlds of the smart home, usually deploying ageist representations of ageing and older adults. The advertisements are multimodal, and while what is seen on screen is often considered most important in a visuo-centric western culture, scholars have argued that it is what audiences hear that has the greatest impact. The acoustic domain of AgeTech advertisements and its relationship to ageism in marketing has not yet been explored. Accordingly, this paper will address this gap by following Van Leeuwen's framework for critical analysis of musical discourse to explore what AgeTech companies say about ageing, older adults, and ageing-in-place technologies using sound in an illustrative set of smart home advertisements for ageing-in-place. The paper will discuss how music, voice, and sound are semiotic resources that are used to construct stereotypical (both negative and positive) portrayals of older adults, reinforce the narrative of "technology as saviour," and trouble the private/public boundaries of the ageing-in-place smart home.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".