MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6884618354 · doi:10.11575/prism/42895

Exploring Stories of Reciprocity in Intergenerational Programming

2024· other· en· W6884618354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)NarrativeCitizen journalismFocus groupNarrative inquiryParticipatory action researchDominance (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ageism, individualism, and the dominance of nuclear families through capitalist and settler colonial policies have contributed to an age-segregated society with fewer connections between generations in dominant Canadian society. In response to our current social context, intergenerational programs (IGPs) that facilitate the development of reciprocal, non-familial relationships between generations have become increasingly popular. Despite a growing body of research on IGPs, contextualized and in-depth knowledge of the experiences of older adults and youth are largely missing. Additionally, very few studies explicitly center reciprocity within intergenerational relations, and instead focus on the impacts of these relationships for only one generation. I used narrative inquiry methodology to explore in depth the experiences of reciprocity of four youth and four older adults involved in an IGP in Calgary, Alberta. I used individual narrative interviews and participatory video methods to elicit stories about the intergenerational friendships that participants formed in the IGP and the impacts of these relationships. Through narrative analysis, I identified four resonant threads across individual interview transcripts and videos. These resonant threads offer a deeper understanding of youth and older adults’ experiences of reciprocity within their intergenerational friendships and speak to the complexities of reciprocity within these relations. I conclude by reflecting on how these stories can change the way we think about, conduct research on, and facilitate IGPs and make recommendations for research, social work practice, and policy. Keywords: intergenerational program, reciprocity, older adults, youth, narrative inquiry, participatory video, social work

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→