Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industrialized nations, Canada included, face potential care crises brought about by decreasing fertility rates, increasing longevity and changing patterns of work, family life and migration. Predicted shortages of caregivers alongside the challenges of caregiving call for the identification of ways to support caregivers and facilitate and reward care work. This article identifies and expands on several key barriers to developing meaningful care policies aimed at supporting informal caregivers. Where appropriate, relevant research, practice and policy implications are discussed. To develop effective policies, it is essential to: recognize heterogeneity among informal caregivers; conceptualize informal care as part of the formal system; and use a proactive, multi-faceted and multi-level approach to supporting care work. Caregiving policies aimed at promoting and protecting the well-being of individuals, families and communities and effectively stewarding individual and collective resources are needed now and in the future.
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 | 0.050 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".