Between ageing and ageism: portrayals of online dating in later life in Canadian print media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines how Canadian print media portrays online dating in later life, based on data from 144 articles published between 2009 and 2011. Results indicate that online dating extends romantic lives and catalyzes successful aging, while revealing that older persons are no longer competitive in the conventional romantic ‘market.’ Goffman’s concepts around the management of ‘spoiled identity’ and ‘stigma’ are particularly useful in this chapter’s portrayal of online dating as evidence that older adults’ success and failure at later life romance reflect wider debates about the nature of ‘normal’ aging versus idealized ‘successful’ aging on an everyday level. Thus, examples are provided of individuals whose behavior and attitudes successfully refuted and subverted the stereotypes about later life both as a de-sexualized zone and a negotiated one whereby aging-related stigma are brought to the ‘front-stage’ of public discourse while exposing the ‘back-stage’ processes and practices of growing older.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".