MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390082398 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igad104.1036

DIGITAL AGEISM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR OLDER ADULT INCLUSION

2023· article· en· W4390082398 on OpenAlexaff
Charlene H. Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)InjusticeDigital inclusionPsychologyDigital healthPopulationSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyComputer scienceHealth careWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract “Digital ageism” is a new form of ageism that is embedded into technology and AI systems. Building on the World Health Organization’s recently published policy brief entitled “Ageism in AI for Health”, our work draws attention to digital ageism referring to the nexus of ageism (discrimination or bias related to age) that is mediated and perpetuated by artificial intelligent (AI) systems and technologies. This paper presents a conceptual framework for identifying various cycles of injustice that perpetuate ageism into our digital spheres. This framework also identifies key contributors that need to be addressed in order to break these cycles. We present the results of a scoping literature review, informed by Arksey and O’Malley, to identify the mechanisms in which digital ageism can be introduced as demonstrated in the literature. This work contributes to foundational knowledge about age-related biases in AI and how they might be encoded or amplified in AI systems. This work sheds light on the need for ethical thinking and other approaches to better include older people, and ensure technology benefits the aging population.

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)0.000
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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207