Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the empirical evidence published since 2007 on men as family caregivers of persons with dementia. Searches were conducted on Academic Search Complete, Ageline, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science using database-specific controlled (i.e., MeSH terms) vocabulary related to dementia, men, and caregiving. Studies published in English between 2007 and 2012 that provided evidence of the experiences of male family caregivers of persons with dementia were included in the review. A total of 30 articles were selected for inclusion. Studies were grouped into three major themes for review: men's experiences of caregiving, relational factors, and outcomes of caregiving. The reviewed studies build on and support previous findings related to stress, burden, accessing services, and the importance of relational factors to men's caregiving experiences. However, there is a need for a framework that explains these findings in relation to masculinities. Such a framework would provide the necessary unifying context for a more powerful explanatory account. Furthermore, there appears to be the potential for great benefit in fully linking men's caregiver research to men's health issues as a means to articulate strategies to sustain the health and well-being of men caregivers. This seems especially relevant in light of the closing gender gap in life expectancy, which will ultimately see many men providing direct care to their partners.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it