MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152315508 · doi:10.1177/0733464809339591

The Impact of Work Interferences on Family Caregiver Outcomes

2009· article· en· W2152315508 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaregiver burdenPsychologyScale (ratio)Sample (material)Work (physics)Regression analysisPopulationGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most research into caregiver employment and outcomes conceives of employment as a dichotomous variable—employed or not. This study examines the relationship between work interferences and caregiver burden, well-being, and self-esteem within a modified stress process model. Regression models are employed using a population-based random sample of caregivers. Employment status effects on outcomes for the total sample are estimated, followed by estimations of the effects of work interferences on the same outcomes for the employed subsample. Employment status is unrelated to outcomes in the total sample. In the employed subsample, a 13-item work interferences scale is related to burden but unrelated to well-being and self-esteem. Of the 13 items, only “performance at work was affected because of caring for a care recipient” is associated with all three caregiver outcomes. These findings suggest that subjective assessment of work interferences may play a more important role than does employment status.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.357 · 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