Bibliographic record
Abstract
OLD AGE IS VALUED AND VARIOUSLY defined in different cultures. Despite socio-economic and cultural advances in liberal democracies, and institutionalized state responsibility in providing care for elderly citizens, old age generally seems associated with negativity. Aging creates many pressures and anxiety for aged and different sorts of concerns for society at large. Despite semantic changes in way older citizens are identified and addressed, and regardless of some attempts at putting a positive spin on old age, anticipation of one's older years is a daunting prospect for most people. The ever-growing age-prevention industry, including sophisticated cosmetic techniques for refuting encroachment of age, reflects perception of aging as an affliction in advanced capitalist societies. While popularized market for products that help push back age-related defects speak to release of middle classes in these societies from bread-and-butter worries, it also has something to do with politics of aging, how society perceives and treats old people and how, in effect, they perceive themselves. The negative delineation of old age is therefore understandable, as aging, for majority of people, involves loss of occupation, social status, and valued functions within family and society. More often than not, aging involves poor health, scant resources if not utmost poverty, abandonment, withdrawal, a sense of uselessness and, sometimes, senility. In her book, Coming of Age , Simone de Beauvoir rejects idea that everyday life for aged is easier because they are no longer required to work, and that they can let go of their obligations and devote themselves to the delights of inaction. This is untrue, she says. The society of today, as we have seen, allows old people leisure only when it has removed material means for them to enjoy it. Those who escape utter poverty or pinching want are forced to take care of a body that has grown
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".