An Integration of Theory, Practice, and Research in Critical Gerontological Social Work: An Interview with Professor Deborah O’Connor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is an interview with Professor Deborah O'Connor, a Canadian and internationally well-known scholar in gerontological social work, by her doctoral student Karen Wong before Professor O'Connor's retirement. The interview aims to honor Professor O'Connor's scholarship and contribution to research, practice, policy, and education and to inspire junior researchers and trainees, educators and students, and practitioners in gerontological social work. Professor O'Connor's ground-breaking scholarship is marked by understanding aging and dementia from critical perspectives. She adopted critical theoretical lenses and critical qualitative research approaches to raise questions about assumptions on aging and dementia and challenge the embedded ageism and other oppressions in society. Her scholarship profoundly impacts real-life practices and policies, such as the development of incapability assessment and the Adult Guardianship Act in British Columbia and Canada. Her doctoral student Karen Wong, who hopes to follow Professor O'Connor's path in gerontological social work, asked questions from the perspective of a trainee, inviting Professor O'Connor to share her journey of interests in gerontological social work, explain her scholarship, and advise early-career research scholars and trainees how they can incorporate critical approaches in gerontological social work and bring influences to practices and policies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".