Older adults’ perceptions of ageism before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies assessing the effects of ageism on older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that perceiving ageism is associated with lower self-reported mental and physical health. Yet, it remains unknown whether these pandemic associations are distinct from pre-pandemic associations. The present study addressed this issue by controlling for pre-pandemic levels of ageism and mental and physical health in order to assess which pandemic-era experiences of ageism predict well-being in older people. METHOD: Both prior to and during the pandemic, 117 older adults completed measures of perceived ageism, self-perceptions of aging, subjective age, subjective health, and life satisfaction. RESULTS: During the pandemic, perceived ageism predicted lower subjective health and life satisfaction. However, when controlling for pre-pandemic measures, perceived ageism during the pandemic predicted only subjective health but not life satisfaction. Perceptions of continued growth positively predicted both measures across most analyses. CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest caution when interpreting the effects of ageism on well-being during the pandemic, as those associations may already have existed pre-pandemic. The finding that perceptions of continued growth positively predicted subjective health and life satisfaction suggests that promoting more positive self-perceptions of aging, along with combatting ageism in society, may represent important policy objectives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".