Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteures analysent le concept du «choix» dans le travail des aidants naturels filiaux. Dans la documentation théorique et empirique sur le travail des aidants naturels, une dichotomie entre le «choix» et l'«obligation» est considérée comme une construction sociale. Néanmoins, cette dichotomie ne reflète pas adéquatement les expériences familiales de fourniture de soins; par exemple, le choix et l'obligation ne constituent pas des motivations mutuellement exclusives. Ils sont plutôt «relationnels», «contextuels» et manifestes dans l'interaction entre des macro et des microcontextes. La dichotomie choix‐obligation est également idéologique. Sur le plan de la politique morale, elle fait la promotion du déchargement de la responsabilité des gouvernements sur les familles, elle obscurcit la complexité des relations filiales et peut même promouvoir l'ambivalence psychologique. In this paper, we discuss the concept of “choice” in filial care work. A dichotomy between choice and obligation is constructed in theoretical and empirical literature on filial care work. However, this dichotomy does not adequately reflect family caregiving experiences; for instance, choice and obligation are not mutually exclusive motivations. Rather, choice and obligation are “relational” and “contextual” and manifest in the interaction between macro‐ and micro‐contexts. The choice‐obligation dichotomy is also ideological. At the moral‐political level, it promotes the downloading of responsibility by governments to family, obscures the complexity of filial relationships, and may even promote psychological ambivalence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".