MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129730208 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800004554

Ingrid A. Connidis. Family Ties and Aging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.

2003· article· fr· W2129730208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara A. Miitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Le tout récent livre de Connidis intitulé Family Ties and Aging, offre un balayage abrégé de la recherche en cours sur la famille et des questions d'une perspective du cours de la vie. Résumant et la recherche canadienne et la recherche américaine, le livre se penche sur les aspects sociaux des liens familiaux et du vieillissement dans des domaines clés (par exemple, la portée des contacts, les échanges d'appui et les expériences subjectives). Plusieurs relations typefamiliales sont examinées et les variations masculines/féminines, ethniques et raciales de même que le statut socioéconomique et l'orientation sexuelle sont rassemblées en chapitres pertinents d'une manière attentionnée et irrésistible. L'auteur énumère plusieurs recherches à propos de même que des questions politiques. Ce livre servira en tant que ressource importante aux érudits, aux praticiens et aux stratèges. Le livre pourra aussi servir comme texte primaire aux étudiants du 1e cycle ou d'études supérieures poursuivant des études en sociologie de la famille et du vieillissement, en gérontologie et en études de la famille. Dans l'ensemble, cette nouvelle contribution contribue à combler un vide dans le domaine de la gérontologie sociale.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.031

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207