Applying Nancy Fraser’s Framework on Three Dimensions of Justice in the Understanding of Justice in the Use of Technology with Older Adults with Moderate to Severe Dementia in Care Settings: Closing the Digital Divide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to technology is getting more important in human services with older adults. However, the digital divide exists between older adults and younger people, as well as among older adults from different social groups. To close the digital divide, we need to consider justice in technology for older adults. This article aims to understand how justice is involved in the use of technology with older adults. It conducted a secondary analysis by looking into the data of a larger study about using dementia-friendly videos with older adults living with moderate to severe dementia in care settings, one of the most marginalized older adult populations in Vancouver, Canada. It refers to Nancy Fraser’s framework on the three dimensions of justice, including redistribution, recognition, and representation, as the guiding framework of analysis. It suggests that different dimensions of justice are intertwined with each other. It also suggests that future researchers may consider this framework to guide their understanding of justice in the use of technology with 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".