MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324311573 · doi:10.1177/07334648231163840

Fostering Positive Views About Older Workers and Reducing Age Discrimination: A Retest of the Workplace Intergenerational Contact and Knowledge Sharing Model

2023· article· en· W4324311573 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Martine Lagacé, Lise Van de Beeck, Caroline D. Bergeron, Philippe Rodrigues-Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAge discriminationPsychosocialPsychologySample (material)GerontologyWork (physics)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineLabour economicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ageism toward older workers is prevalent in the labor market. The present study aimed to understand psychosocial mechanisms that may counteract this form of discrimination and help retain workers in the labor force. Using a sample of 500 Canadian younger and older workers, this study tested a model hypothesizing that intergenerational contacts and knowledge sharing practices can reduce ageist views about older adults and age-based discrimination against one's own group, and in turn, enhance work engagement and intentions to remain in the workplace. The final model shows that knowledge sharing practices mediate the relationship between intergroup contacts and positive views about older workers as well as age-based discrimination. It also suggests that low levels of age-based discrimination increase work engagement and intentions to remain in the organization for workers of all ages. Practice and policy implications are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.172 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207