MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2092853598 · doi:10.3138/cja.26.suppl_1.117

“They suffered with us and should be compensated”: Entitling Caregivers of Canada's Veterans

2007· article· en· W2092853598 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Struthers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)Veterans AffairsCompassionVictoryMandateIndependence (probability theory)Political sciencePsychologyPublic administrationGerontologySociologyMedicineLawPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the struggle to win lifetime eligibility for selected home care benefits provided through the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) for veterans' widows in recognition of their years of unpaid caregiving - a policy change eventually implemented between 2003 and 2004. It explores how arguments on their behalf shifted from discourses of dependency, cost-saving, and compassion to ones of entitlement and commemoration between 1981 and 2004 as the large cohort of Second World War veterans and their wives moved towards the end of their lives. This policy victory for veterans' widows marked a historic shift in mandate for Veterans Affairs Canada and an important recognition by the state of unpaid caregiving as a form of national service. If Canadians are to learn from this example, however, it must be through seeing all caregiving labour - not just that of veterans' wives - as equally heroic and worthy of compensation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0340.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicGlobal Health Workforce Issues→French-language works237,207→