Kvinnors och mäns hjälp till sina gamla föräldrar – innehåll, omfattning och konsekvenser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s and men’s lial care: extent, content and consequencesThis paper analyses the extent, content and consequences of caregiving for elderly parents from a gender and welfare state perspective using a nationally representative postal survey conducted in Sweden in 2013 (response rate 60.5 per cent, 3630 individuals, age 45–66 years). Negative consequences of filial care on well-being, work situation and employment were examined. The analysis confirms earlier research showing that filial care is common in Sweden but is less intense and has fewer negative consequences than in less generous welfare states. A quarter of both women and men gave filial care at least once a month, on average around 3.4 hours a week. Although men and women gave the same extent of filial care, it was more common among women to give the more demanding personal care as well as to experience mental and physical strain, difficulties in finding time for leisure activities and reduced ability to focus on their job. Although women retired earlier than planned due to filial care more often than men, this was very rare. Men and women, however, suffered to the same extent from difficulties in managing to accomplish their tasks, to take part in meetings, courses and travels, as well as having to reduce their working hours and quit their jobs. The content of care was crucial for the occurrence of negative consequences of caregiving, even when the analysis controlled for hours of care given. The more demanding the care tasks performed, the more common it was among both men and women that their well-being and work situation were affected. The correlation between care tasks and negative impact, however, differed between genders. The impact of managerial care was much higher for women than for men, which is discussed in relation to the decline of eldercare services and the lack of coordination of health and eldercare services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.074 |
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".