MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390042671 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igad104.0789

DIGITAL NARRATIVE GERONTOLOGY AS BRIDGES BETWEEN GENERATIONS TO IMPROVE WELL-BEING, LEARNING, AND SHARED EXPERIENCES

2023· article· en· W4390042671 on OpenAlexaff
Béatrice Crettenand Pecorini, Emmanuel Duplàa

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePrideSolidarityLonelinessPsychologyFeelingPerceptionSocial psychologySociologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Elders are an essential society component for the collective success of the demographic transition, for social inclusion and the fight against ageism (Berrut, 2020). Ageism - discrimination by age, is a very present concern. One way to respond to this challenge is to build bridges between generations in society; intergenerational programs can reduce the perception of stereotypes about other generations (Barbosa et al., 2021; Pentecouteau & Eneau, 2017), strengthen intergenerational solidarity, and help develop capital and social cohesion (Topping, 2020). Based on the theories of lifelong learning and intergenerational learning, our research engages digital narrative gerontology (Crettenand Pecorini, 2019). We have organized several meetings in pairs (elder – young) where each pair created a digital narrative from the oral narration of the elder life story, supported by the multimedia skills that the young adult acquired during the workshop we have set up. From individual and pairs semi-directed interviews, logbooks, debriefings, and digital narrative, based on case study thematic analysis, our preliminary results confirm the results obtained in 2019: improved general well-being, reduction in the perception of generation stereotypes, reduction in feelings of loneliness and isolation, strengthening intergenerational solidarity, satisfaction to rediscover one’s life or the projection of one’s life stimulated by example, new knowledge acquisition, as well as the pride of artifact creation and its sharing. This innovative project can be applied in schools, colleges, and universities as well as in community centers and seniors’ residences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207