MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970129710 · doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4063

The Impact of Perceived Adequacy of Social Support on Caregiving Burden of Family Caregivers

2011· article· en· W1970129710 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel W. L. Lai, Caroline Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaregiver burdenFamily caregiversSocial supportPsychologyMultilevel modelTelephone surveySample (material)GerontologyTelephone interviewClinical psychologyMedicineDementiaSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social support is important for family caregivers. This study examined the effect of family caregivers’ perceived adequacy of social support on caregiver burden. Data were obtained from a random sample of 340 family caregivers of adults aged 65 and older in Calgary, Canada, through telephone interviews using a structured questionnaire. Three questions measured caregivers’ perceived adequacy of social support in emotional, caregiving-related activities and in financial and material assistance domains. Caregiver burden was measured using the Zarit Burden Interview. Using hierarchical multiple regression, a higher level of perceived adequacy of social support was significantly related to a lower level of caregiving burden. The findings illustrate the importance of practitioners providing tangible and affordable services to family caregivers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social ServicesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207