The Interpretive Dynamics of Filial and Collective Responsibility for Elderly People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de comptes rendus de 28 enfants adultes, l'auteure étudie la dynamique interprétative de la responsabilité sociale et filiale envers les personnes âgées. Dans leurs propos sur leur responsabilité filiale, les participants avaient tendance à qualifier de positives les motivations individualistes et spontanées tandis qu'en parlant des autres Canadiens ils critiquaient les valeurs individualistes comme faisant la promotion de l'irresponsabilité. D'autres personnes ont étéévaluées négativement en contraste à un passé et à des cultures non occidentales idéalisées : la « société canadienne » a été utilisée comme opposition à celle qui définit la personne comme filialement responsable. Dans ce processus, les participants ont également reproduit l'opposition conceptuelle entre la responsabilité sociétale et la responsabilité filiale; le paradigme alternatif de la « solidarité» a été utilisé plus rarement. Drawing on accounts from 28 adult children, I explore the interpretive dynamics of filial and social responsibility for elderly people. Participants tended to characterize individualistic, voluntary motivations positively in talk about personal filial responsibility, yet when speaking about other Canadians, criticized individualistic values as promoting irresponsibility. Others were assessed negatively in contrast to an idealized past and non‐Western cultures; “Canadian society” was used as a contrast against which to define self as filially responsible. In this process, participants also reproduced conceptual opposition between filial and societal responsibility; rarer was an alternative, “solidarity” paradigm utilized.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".