MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394904659 · doi:10.56367/oag-042-11272

Ageism, gerontological nursing and healthcare contexts

2024· article· en· W4394904659 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathleen F. Hunter, Sherry Dahlke

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Government · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontological nursingHealth careNursingGeriatric carePsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ageism, gerontological nursing and healthcare contexts Professors Kathleen Hunter and Sherry Dahlke from the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Nursing explain why gerontological nursing education is key to addressing the unconscious negative stereotypes about ageing and improving care for older adults. Ageism is worldwide and is apparent in healthcare professions and health systems. (1) This is partly due to healthcare systems, particularly hospitals, that are institutionally ageist because they are designed for younger people with one acute condition rather than the majority of users who are older adults with chronic and acute conditions. (2) Moreover, healthcare professionals, of which nurses are the largest group that interact with patients, may be unconscious about their negative biases towards older people. Nurses’ unconscious biases are often demonstrated by overaccommodating older patients due to an underlying belief that older people are less capable. (3) Nurses may feel pressured to engage in overaccommodation to save time because they are working in hospitals where they experience time constraints due to short staffing, lack of material resources, and hospital cultures that focus on medical acuity. (4)

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access GovernmentSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207