MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055403411 · doi:10.1177/0164027509351475

Filial Piety, Caregiving Appraisal, and Caregiving Burden

2009· article· en· W2055403411 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel W. L. Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilial pietyStressorPsychologyStructural equation modelingCaregiver burdenGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineGender studiesSociologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effects of filial piety on the appraisal of caregiving burden by Chinese-Canadian family caregivers. A quantitative telephone survey was used as the research design for this study. A total of 339 randomly selected Canadian-Chinese family caregivers of elderly were interviewed by telephone. A hypothesized model denoting both the direct and indirect effects of filial piety on caregiving burden was tested using structural equation modeling. While stressors and appraisal factors reported direct predicting effects on caregiving burden, filial piety indirectly affected caregiving burden by altering appraisals of the caregiver role. Filial piety served as a protective function to reduce the negative effects of stressors and to enhance the positive effect of appraisal factors on caregiving burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations277
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch on AgingSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207