Inclusive Design: To AgeTech or not to AgeTech?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations has identified population ageing as a global phenomenon, with virtually every country in the world experiencing growth in the size and proportion of older persons in their populations. Specifically, the share of the population 65 plus will increase from 9% in 2019 to 16% by 2050, more than doubling from 703 million to 1.5 billion. In this context, AgeTech is expected to be a $2.7 trillion global industry by 2025, based upon having a 10% share of the growing global Longevity Economy. So, companies and investors are understandably interested in technology that would bring living longer closer to living well. While the promise of such technology is preferable, the approach of AgeTech to be exclusively designed for older people is problematic; as lacking Inclusive Design in the initial development of digital technologies cannot be remedied by further lacking Inclusive Design in subsequent specialist AgeTech. Such specialist products and services would be inherently limited, even assuming gender and ethnic inclusivity. They would likely be crisis purchases bought because of need rather than desire, lacking appeal because of potential or perceived stigma. This is because such ageism can significantly affect how ageing is understood in design, for example the notion of 'senior' can be associated with illness and/or disability. However, it can be estimated, at least for developed countries, that the majority of seniors are fully physically and mentally able. For example, in the United Kingdom, from their Office for National Statistics data, 58% of those at or above state pension age (i.e. senior) are fully physically and mentally able; and for Canada, from their Statistics Canada data, the proportion is similarly estimated to be 62%. So, designers and developers need to move beyond ageist stereotypes as ageing populations are diverse, requiring design to understand and embody their diversity. Therefore, we consider moving beyond ageist stereotypes, negative and positive, in designing preferable technology futures of living well longer. Positive stereotypes can also be harmful, for example sageism, in which the notion of 'elder' can create expectations on older people that cannot subsequently be met. Overall, adopting Inclusive Design in the development of digital technologies would ensure usefulness and appeal to adults of all ages, for inclusive rather than ageist technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".