MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152191700 · doi:10.1177/073346480001900402

The Psychological and Physical Costs of Caregiving: The Canadian Study of Health and Aging

2000· article· en· W2152191700 on OpenAlexaffabout
Norm O’Rourke, Holly Tuokko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorConstruct (python library)DementiaAffect (linguistics)PsychologyGerontologyPhysical healthDepressive symptomsPhysical illnessClinical psychologyMedicineMental healthDiseasePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persons with dementia and their caregivers were randomly identified as part of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. The current study examines the interrelation among demographic and illness variables relative to various outcomes of caregiving ( n = 181). From these analyses, two pairings of canonical variates emerge as significantly correlated: The first suggests an underlying affective construct related to activities of daily living and problematic behaviors; the second reflects a caregiver health construct composed of demographic variables, depressive affect, and diagnosis of the care-recipient. These findings suggest that negative caregiving outcomes may arise within distinct affective and physical health domains. Illness would appear to manifest within either system where a predisposition exists among caregivers faced with specific stressors.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207