MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127355650 · doi:10.1177/1049732303257236

Deciding Whether to Continue, Share, or Relinquish Caregiving: Caregiver Views

2003· article· en· W2127355650 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationGrounded theoryPsychologyFamily caregiversHealth and Retirement StudyFamily memberElder careQualitative researchSocial psychologyGerontologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyMedicineFamily medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using grounded theory, the authors explore informal caregiving and develop the beginnings of a substantive caregiving theory explaining some of the decision making involved in providing care to an older family member. Sixteen caregivers (CGs) participated in the study. Line-by-line and dimensional analyses reveal various purposes of caregiving for an older family member. These purposes influence whether and how CGs continue to provide the care or decide to share or relinquish caregiving to health care providers. This study suggests that a broader conceptualization of caregiving is needed to illuminate fully the complexity involved in providing care to older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.503
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.101 · 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