MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083062252 · doi:10.3138/cja.26.suppl_1.027

Family Caregiving or Caregiving Alone: Who Helps the Helper?

2007· article· en· W2083062252 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanie Sims‐Gould, Anne Martin-Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentPsychologyVariety (cybernetics)Focus groupFocus (optics)GerontologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study advances the understanding of family caregiving by examining the relationship between adult children caregivers and their helpers. Specifically, it focuses on examining "who helps whom" and extends analyses beyond the dyadic focus of caregiving in later life. The focus on helping and caregiving addresses the variety of contributions and responsibilities involving not only the caregiver who was the target respondent in this research, but also others identified as helpers in the provision of care. The data for this study are derived from the Work and Eldercare Research group of CARNET: The Canadian Aging Research Network. Secondary analysis of CARNET data focuses on data collected from 250 individuals with significant caregiving responsibilities for at least one older person. Findings extend Kahn & Antonucci's convoys of social support model (1981) and Cantor's model of social care (1991) by disentangling some of the dimensions of helping and caregiving, such as the distinction between direct and assistive help.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207