Dependent seniors at home--formal and informal help.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article documents the number of hours of help that seniors living in private households received from formal and/or informal sources in 1996. DATA SOURCE: Data are from Cycle 11 of the General Social Survey, conducted in 1996. This analysis focuses on 1,089 respondents aged 65 or older who, because of a long-term health problem, required assistance to remain in their homes and who indicated the source of assistance and the amount of help time received. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Analysis of variance, followed by Tukey's HSD test, was used to examine differences in help time received from each source. Medians are presented using an independent medians test. Linear regression was used to model associations between the amount of help time received from each source and certain characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: In 1996, dependent seniors living in the community received a median of 3 hours of help a week. Most of this assistance came from informal sources. Living arrangements and age were the major influences on hours received from informal sources. Having no surviving children and being disabled in terms of dexterity or mobility/flexibility were associated with increased hours of formal care. For those getting both types of help, increased hours from formal sources did not significantly reduce the hours received from informal sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".