Imminent Concerns Of Filial Caregivers Reporting Recent Experiences Of Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this descriptive study was to generate information about imminent concerns of adult children that could serve as initial context for development of a meaningful framework for coping with an ongoing parent care situation. Ninety-two adult children pre-selected for self-reports of crisis were interviewed about their concerns and goals for caregiving and asked to discuss experiences of crisis in the previous six months of caregiving. Key issues pertaining to their experiences were extracted from notes of the interviews and classified according to their common properties. Cohen's kappa for interrater reliability of the classifications was .79 while percentage agreement was 98 percent. The results of the study point to the presence of multiple issues pertaining to significant life and death events, relational burdens, early experiences with the family of origin, and focal patterns of distress and coping. Synthesis of the findings reveals overriding concerns for making improvements in one's family of origin, created family of adulthood, and middle-aged self. Findings have implications for experiential adult education in the area of filial maturity and caregiving.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".