FACTORS THAT PROMOTE AND PREVENT PREPARATION FOR FUTURE CARE NEEDS: PERCEPTIONS OF OLDER CANADIAN, GERMAN, AND U.S. WOMEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of needing help with household tasks or of requiring care in old age increases. Using semi-structured, qualitative interviews, beliefs about the usefulness versus uselessness of planning ahead for future care needs (FCN) were investigated in 23 East German, 10 U.S., and 10 Canadian elderly-community dwelling women (> or= 65 years). Primary reasons in favor of planning for FCN were: gaining a feeling of security regarding the future, avoiding being a burden to potential helpers, and coping with one's present health conditions. Factors that prevent planning for FCN were: the difficulty foreseeing FCN, the lack of resources to plan, and low levels of perceived vulnerability. The women dealt with the contradictions between these factors that promote and prevent preparation by making general plans which could be adapted in the case of needing help by developing alternative plans or by avoidance of thinking about possible future health crises.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".