“When somebody says this is a program for adults, it kind of smacks of pornography”: Older Adults’ Opinions on Age Labels in the Public Library
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronological age is invariably used as a categorizing tool for spaces, collections, and programs in public libraries. With age-based conceptions of human experience in library practice, education, and scholarship primarily focused on those under the age 18, little is known how age-based classifications are implemented in public libraries, and with what impacts, for older library patrons. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Stemming from a larger project that seeks to bring attention to the ways in which public libraries engage with community-dwelling older adults, this paper explores 51 older patrons' perspectives on the numbers and language (e.g., 55+, older adult, seniors, adult) assigned to older adults in library programs and which label best (or least) suits their sense of identity and, in turn, what language encourages or deters their engagement with library programs. RESULTS: Findings illustrate that age-based language describing older adult library programs is often at odds with patrons' perceptions of how library programming relevant to them ought to be labeled. Common to all participants was a clear dislike for the term "elderly." While most participants preferred "older adult" to "senior," others voiced no preference, as long as they felt heard and valued. Many participants linked the use of language used to describe library programs to being excluded from and treated differently from other (younger) library patrons. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The language used to group and describe different library populations directly shapes feelings of belonging (or exclusion) in library programs. Insights from this research contribute to our evolving understandings of the ways in which language connected to age can shape one's sense of identity. Results also serve to cultivate a more sensitive and critical approach to the question of age within library science, and, by extension, the experiences of older adults who frequent the library.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".