The Raging Grannies: \nUnderstanding the Role of Activism in the Lives of Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guided by feminist gerontology, this qualitative study explored the role of activism in the lives of older women. More specifically, it examined the involvement of older women in one particular group of activists, the Raging Grannies. Of particular interest was to understand the experience of how and why older women become involved in activism. This study was collaborative in nature, with in-depth active interviews as the primary method of data collection. In total 15 women participated in face-to-face interviews, with five women contributing to the study in an on-line Raging Grannies forum. Participants were located in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. The findings demonstrated that these women, who used non-violent, creative methods of protest, challenged the traditional views of growing older. Through their activism, the Raging Grannies also created community. Although the Raging Grannies did not define their experience as leisure, they described their experience as "fun" but rewarding work. The intent of this research was to contribute to the literature on ageing and leisure while giving the opportunity for older women to share their stories. Emergent theory suggests that activism for these women represented the application or expression of shared life experiences which are unique to women. The Raging Grannies provided the space for the study participants to express their collective life experiences, particularly in the context of shared concerns around a more just, fair and sustainable society.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".