Queer Gerontology: Principles for Advancing Rigor and Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gerontology has advanced greatly in recent decades in its attention to the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and additional sexual and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) people. To this end, scholars have argued for a queering of our understanding of the life course and aging futures. Others have called for the queering of gerontology itself. We argue that a vision of queer gerontology-framed in 5 principles-can promote rigorous advancement in our scholarship around aging as well as transforming our approaches to knowledge development and building scholarly communities based on an ethic of care. Grounded in historical waves of LGBTQ+ aging literature and our own experiences in this scholarly area, we present and discuss five principles of queer gerontology, as a means of building guidance for and solidarity in the study of LGBTQ+ aging. We argue that these principles will foster greater diversity and creativity in visions of later life, thereby promoting inclusion and justice for LGBTQ+ older adults, but also for all people as we age.
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 | 0.295 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.161 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".