Mother-Adult Daughter Relationships Within Dementia Care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that intergenerational caregiving between mothers and daughters will become increasingly common, and yet, we know very little about the specific relationships between adult daughters and their mothers with dementia. Guided by socialist-feminist theory and a life-course perspective, 15 mother-adult daughter dyads participated in two individual, semistructured interviews. Data analysis revealed four dynamic types of mother-daughter relationships: custodial, combative, cooperative, and cohesive. Custodial and cooperative relationships mainly focused on the provision of and receipt of tasks, whereas combative and cohesive are emotion focused. At the same time, custodial and combative relationships are based on deficits compared with strength based cohesive and cooperative relationships. In addition, certain contextual factors, such as expectations of care and levels of support, shaped the development of these relationships. Moreover, study findings highlight a number of implications for practice, policy, and research necessary to support individuals with dementia and their families.
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 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 it