Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within gerontological caregiving research, there is a major emphasis on stresses and burdens of this role. Yet there has been little attention directed toward the coping strategies that caregivers engage in to cope with this role and the factors that influence their adoption of different coping strategies. This article examines coping strategies and change in coping strategy over a 1-year period. In particular the differential importance of caregiver capacity (such as social support, health, and personality) compared with careload (such as hours of caregiving and need of the care recipient) is examined within a path model. Data came from a purposive sample of caregivers experiencing heavy demands. Overall, problem-focused coping is used more often than emotion-focused coping (either positive or negative) or seeking social support, but caregivers use all types simultaneously. Caregiver capacity, specifically neuroticism, is the strongest predictor of problem-focused coping with those high in neuroticism less likely to use this strategy. High neuroticism also predicts less use overall and negative emotion-focused coping strategies. Few significant predictors emerge of change; those that did were caregiver capacity, not careload variables. The use of all coping strategies, except seeking social support which remained stable, decreased over a 1-year period.
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 | 0.001 | 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".