MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063227931 · doi:10.1017/s0714980814000336

Spouse and Adult Child Differences in Caregiving Burden

2014· article· fr· W2063227931 on OpenAlex
Neena L. Chappell, Carren Dujela, André Smıth

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpousePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the correlates of burden for spouse and adult child caregivers at two points in time and assessed whether correlates at T(1) predicted burden at T(2). The sample consisted of 878 caregivers to older adults throughout British Columbia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors. Burden was measured six months after the older adult was prescribed the medication and one year later (n = 759). Findings suggest that adult children experience more burden than spouses at both T(1) and T(2) with adult children but not spouses decreasing their burden over time. Correlates of T(1) burden explained significant amounts of variance, revealing differential correlates for the two groups and the importance of caregiver characteristics over patient characteristics. Burden at T(2) is explained mostly by T(2) factors, plus T(1) burden, suggesting the importance of relatively immediate factors for direct effects on caregiver burden. Indirect effects operated through T(1) 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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