MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343614697 · doi:10.7202/1069332ar

In Consideration of the Needs of Caregivers: Grandparenting Experiences in Manitoba First Nation Communities

2020· article· en· W2343614697 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rachel Eni, Carol D. H. Harvey, Wanda Phillips-Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrandparentPsychologyGerontologySociologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grandparents are valued in traditional and contemporary Aboriginal societies. In this paper we summarize traditional knowledge from Manitoba Aboriginal experiences, and we provide data from contemporary on-reserve grandmothers. Data for this study were collected in 2007 in 16 First nations Manitoba communities. Open-ended semi-structured in-person interviews were conducted in maternal-child centers that provide programs for developmental health for children and their parents (prenatal to age 6). Of the 100 people interviewed, ten of those were grandmothers, and their stories are analyzed in this paper. Results showed that grandmothers provided cultural transmission to subsequent generations, ensured child safety, provided acceptance and care for grandchildren, were challenged by inadequate and unsafe housing and communities, had difficulty proving educational supports for grandchildren, were supported by a network of kin, found community support inconsistent, needed to make a living, and needed more health supports. Implications for policy and research are given at the end of the paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First PeoplesSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207