Family Members Providing Home-Based Palliative Care to Older Adults: The Enactment of Multiple Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These two studies are designed to evaluate the reactions of male nurses aged 45 years and older toward ageism. The goal of the first study is to test the prestigious work domain model of psychological disengagement resulting from a previous study conducted among female nurses. This model has been confirmed through path analyses conducted on a sample of 236 male nurse technicians; by the same token, it has been shown to apply in the case of lower-status employees working in a prestigious field. In particular, the more a male nurse aged 45 and older experiences relative personal deprivation, the more he discredits feedback from his co-workers and superiors; such discrediting, in turn, leads to devaluation of the domain of work, which in turn lowers self-esteem. The goal of the second study is three-fold, namely: (a) testing the disengagement model among 419 male nurse clinicians; (b) extending this model through the addition of ageist communication as a variable triggering personal relative deprivation; and (c) constructing a scale of ageist communication. Path analyses have again confirmed that the way a domain is appreciated influences the negative impact that devaluation can produce on self-esteem, regardless of the gender or status of the employee working in that field. In addition, these results demonstrate the central role played by communication in the workplace as a vehicle of ageism and as a precursor of ageing employees' discomfort. The discussion covers the implications of ageing employees' reactions toward ageism as well as the consequences of depreciatory language and exclusionary communication practices in the workplace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".