MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151990508 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800001550

Barriers to Residential Planning: Perspectives from Selected Older Parents Caring for Adult Offspring with Lifelong Disabilities

2002· article· en· W2151990508 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Joffres

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandparentTypologyOffspringIdentification (biology)Lifelong learningPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper presents a typology of older parents caring for adult offspring with lifelong disabilities, as well as barriers to residential planning from the perspectives of older parents caring for adult offspring with lifelong disabilities. Project participants included 54 older parents and one grandparent (all aged 60+). Information was collected via focus groups in six provinces across Canada. Transcripts were analysed using different analytical procedures, including pattern identification, clustering of conceptual groupings, identification of relationships between variables, constant comparisons, and theoretical memos. Older parents' reluctance to engage in the planning of future living options was found to be multi-factorial and linked to the macro- and micro-systems within which these families were embedded.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207