Aging Together: Caring Relations in Families of Adults With Intellectual Disabilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Study: To examine the dynamics of caring relations in older families that include an adult with Intellectual Disabilities (ID). To date, there has been very little research exploring the experiences of aging families of community-dwelling adults with ID. Design and Methods: An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted in British Columbia, Canada. Eight participants were recruited through purposive sampling. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted to explore the experience of aging concurrently with a community-dwelling relative with ID. Data were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: Three main themes emerged: (a) Recognizing the Changes of Aging, (b) Strengthening Connections, and (c) Planning for the Future. Implications: Aging concurrently with a community-dwelling relative with ID is a unique experience for older adults and challenges traditional views of familial caring relations. These relationships are characterized by evolving patterns of care and exchange. There is also a sense of urgency to securing future care arrangements for the adult relative with ID. Advanced care-planning is complicated by the adult with ID' understanding of death and dying. Family caregiving policies and practices that take into account the complexities of these relationships are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it