Mario Paquet. Les Professionnels et les familles dans le soutien aux personnes âgées dépendantes. Montréal, QC: Harmattan, 2000.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This book is based on a doctoral thesis (itself comprised of four published articles and a conclusion) defended by Mario Paquet in 1998. The subject is the reluctance (réticence) of caregivers to use formal support services. The value of this book lies in its elucidating the challenge faced by professionals as they try to comprehend family dynamics from the standpoint of caregivers rather than from their own institutional perspective. Despite this positive contribution, the book has two major limitations. The first concerns the methodology chosen for examining family dynamics. Although the author situates himself within the paradigm of the actor and a constructivist epistemology, for less than convincing reasons, the majority of the data is derived from interviews with key informants (e.g., professionals) rather than with caregivers themselves. The author is thus compelled to discern the logic of one actor vis-à-vis another from the perspective of the latter. The second reservation pertains to use of the term ‘réticence’ to describe the hesitancy of caregivers to use formal services. To conceptualize non-use as réticence, which must be overcome to prevent caregiver burnout, reflects the perspective of professional service providers. This book may be of interest to newcomers to the field of caregiving but of less interest to those familiar with the literature in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".