MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2114761256 · doi:10.1017/s0714980814000270

Liminality and Low-Income Aging Families by Choice: Meanings of Family and Support

2014· article· fr· W2114761256 on OpenAlexaff
Susan A. McDaniel, Amber Gazso

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityReciprocity (cultural anthropology)SociologyMeaning (existential)Social psychologyExtended familyPsychologyGender studiesAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Le vieillissement, à travers la lentille de l'individualisation, démontre des changements, tant dans la composition de la famille et le sens de la famille et du soutien. Les familles à faible revenu qui – pour survivre – aussi choisissent parfois de nouvelles relations flexibles de soutien social, y compris les parents et non-parents : celles sont les familles vieillissantes par choix. En appliquant le concept de liminalité (états transitoires de l’être), créé par l’individualisation, nous avons exploré les expériences de liens étroits dans les familles à faible revenu constitutées de parents et membres non-parents vieillissants. Des entretiens qualitatifs avec des répondants représentant deux ou trois générations de familles vieillissantes par choix ont montré comment ces familles perçoivent les sens de la famille et du soutien social. Nous trouvons que la reciprocité est moins essentielle aux rapports entre les plus vieux et les plus jeunes dans les réseaux familiaux que l’on pourrait s’attendre. La liminalité façonne les sens et les échanges dans les familles vieillissantes à faible revenu par choix, de sorte que n’importe la façon dont les relations soient-elles ténues, elles procurent un sentiment d’appartenance et de la signification.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→