Successful Linkage Between Formal and Informal Care Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health interventions are currently being revamped to address the specific needs of chronic illness and population aging. In this context, focus has increasingly turned to Alzheimer-type dementia, an illness that is considered to mobilize a large number of social actors into long-term involvement of varying intensity. Linkage problems between families and professional systems have been well documented, yet the reasons for this remain relatively unexplored. In this article, we outline how we used social network data and narrative methods to better understand the linkage processes between formal and informal care systems. We present the trajectories of four caregivers of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease who were able to establish relationships with resources outside the family. In each of the cases, the dimensions of trust and recognition were central to establishing and maintaining supportive relationships, and must therefore be understood in light of social network dynamics and the broader environment. Although preliminary, this study contributes to the state of knowledge on linkage problems by proposing "bottom-up" solutions that are client centered.
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 | 0.021 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".