Support for very old people in Sweden and Canada: the pitfalls of cross-cultural studies; same words, different concepts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Swedish and Canadian 80+ studies are collecting longitudinal data regarding medical, psychological and sociological aspects of the lives of people who are 80 years of age and older. A paper entitled 'Informal and formal support from a multidisciplinary perspective: a Swedish follow-up between 80 and 82 years of age', was based on the Swedish 80+ study. It examined psychosocial and health measures by support type (i.e. no support, and formal and informal support). Support is defined as care given by either friends and family (informal support) or healthcare professionals (formal support). The present paper compares participant characteristics between two groups of 80-year-olds from two study sites (i.e. Lund, Sweden, and Fredericton, NB, Canada), using the Swedish study site data. Only those participants who participated at both 80 and 82 years of age were included in the analyses. The intent of the descriptive analyses was to compare cross-culturally the two groups of participants and the level of support that they received. Between the two groups, the level of support received by the participants was rather dissimilar: Canadians reported receiving far more informal and formal support compared to Swedes. This finding was despite the fact that the Swedish state provides more funded support than that of Canada to its citizens. Therefore, the present authors speculate that the concept of support has a different meaning in Sweden than in Canada. This speculation raises concerns about cross-cultural studies, particularly when survey questions involve culturally ambiguous concepts such as the term 'support'.
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 | 0.112 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".