Nurses Negotiating Professional–Familial Care Boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this sequential, two-phase mixed-methods study was to examine the health of male and female nurses who provided care to older relatives (i.e., double duty caregivers). We explored the experiences of 32 double duty caregivers, which led to the development of an emergent grounded theory, Negotiating Professional-Familial Care Boundaries with two broad dialectical processes: professionalizing familial care and striving for balance. This article examines striving for balance, which is the process that responds to familial care expectations in the midst of available resources and reflects the health experiences of double duty caregivers. Two subprocesses of striving for balance, reaping the benefits and taking a toll, are presented in three composite vignettes, each representing specific double duty caregiving (DDC) prototypes (making it work, working to manage, living on the edge). This emergent theory extends current thinking of family caregiving that will inform the development and refinement of practices and policies relevant to DDC.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".