MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541848022 · doi:10.1300/j031v18n03_05

Families' Values and Attitudes Regarding Responsibility for the Frail Elderly

2006· article· en· W1541848022 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy Guberman, Éric Gagnon, Jean‐Pierre Lavoie, Hélène Belleau, Michel Fournier, Lise Grenier, Aline Vézina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux CavendishCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Vieille-CapitaleUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustTelephone surveyService (business)PsychologyScale (ratio)Family valuesGerontologyMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the norms and values associated with care to disabled and frail aging parents, in particular those with regard to the sharing of responsibilities for care between families and formal services, and this within three age cohorts in Quebec, Canada. It is based on a telephone interview of 1,315 people. Factor analysis yielded four factors: (1) family responsibility; (2) uncompromising family obligations; (3) acceptance of services; (4) distrust of services. Analyses of the data indicate that all three age cohorts consider that families have responsibilities for their aging family members, at the same time that they score very high on the acceptance of service scale. This article discusses these seemingly paradoxical results and their implications for aging policy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging & Social PolicySame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207