Young adults’ experiences of ageism in the United Kingdom: Forms, sources, and associations with intergenerational attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous research suggests that a large proportion of young adults experience ageism, information is scarce regarding exactly how often they encounter different forms of age-based discrimination. To address this lacuna, we recruited young adults from the U.K. to complete four weekly surveys in which they reported the number of days during the preceding week on which they experienced various forms of ageism. More than three-quarters of our respondents experienced some form of ageism at least once during the reporting period, and more than one-quarter of respondents experienced ageism (on average) at least once per week during the reporting period. The most oft-encountered forms of ageism encountered by young adults involved being shown a lack of respect/being patronized and having other people make assumptions about their cognitive or social characteristics. Most commonly, the perpetrators of ageism were middle-aged and later middle-aged persons (rather than older people) encountered in the course of employment. The number of days on which young adults experienced ageism was inversely correlated with the degree to which they believed middle-aged and later-middle aged adults held positive stereotypes of young adults, and positively predicted the desire to avoid interaction with middle-aged, late middle-aged, and older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 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".