Baby Boom Caregivers: Care in the Age of Individualization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many Baby Boomers are faced with the care of aging parents, as well as that of disabled or ill spouses or children. This study examines how Baby Boomers in Quebec, Canada, perceive and play their role as caregivers and how this might differ from their parents' generation. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a qualitative and empirical study using an interpretive constructivist design. We interviewed 39 Baby Boomers caring for a family member with a semistructured guide that examined respondents' identification with their social generation, their relationship to and values regarding caregiving, and the reality of the caregiving they offered. RESULTS: In contrast to our perceptions of previous generations, the majority of interviewees refuse to be confined to the sole identity of caregiver, as they work to juggle caregiving, work, family, and social commitments. To succeed in this juggling act, they have high expectations of support from services. Based on this new approach to caregiving, we advance the idea of a "denaturalization" of care, no longer seen as a "natural" destiny or "normal" family responsibility. IMPLICATIONS: The new conception of caregiving as work that can and should be shared with services is in direct opposition to public policy that is based on the assumption of family care as the cornerstone of long-term care. Can the healthcare system adapt to the new expectations of the Baby Boom generation or will these caregivers be forced to take on elements of caregiving they no longer consider legitimate?
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".