The Relationship between Dementia Family Caregivers' Traditional Values and Beliefs about Caregiving and Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Canada’s aging population is diverse and this diversity will continue to \ngrow for the next two decades (Government of Canada, 2002; Katz, 2005; Statistics \nCanada, 2010). Objective: to examine the relationship between dementia family \ncaregivers’ traditionally-based beliefs about caregiving, their caregiving experience, and \ntheir well-being. Method: exploratory secondary data analysis of cross-sectional survey \ndata from 76 community caregivers of persons with dementia in Ontario. Results: \ntraditional values for caregiving was independently associated with coping resources and \nhealth status but not depression symptoms. Caregiver self-efficacy and social support \nboth partially mediated the relationship between beliefs about caregiving and caregiver \nhealth status. Discussion: Findings from this exploratory study are consistent with stress \nprocess models of culture and caregiving. The finding that self-efficacy was associated \nwith traditional values and that it mediated the relationship between traditional values and \ncaregiver well-being is new to the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".