MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487070084 · doi:10.1080/01634372.2016.1214660

Haudenosaunee Grandmothers Caring for their Grandchildren: The Process of Assuming the Caregiving Role

2016· article· en· W2487070084 on OpenAlex
Lori Diane Hill

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Social Work · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsGrandparentGrounded theoryPsychologyWelfarePrimary caregiverGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologyQualitative researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this grounded theory study was to understand the processes, motivations, and reasons for Aboriginal grandmothers assuming the full-time caregiving role for their grandchildren. Fifteen Haudenosaunee grandmothers who were from the Six Nations community participated in this study. The results indicate that a series of complex factors, circumstances, and processes contributed to them caring for their grandchildren. Of particular significance is that, prior to assuming their full-time caregiving roles, they had intermittently cared for their grandchildren as a means of preventing family breakdown. Many of them were accustomed to this type of care arrangement as over half of the grandmothers had been cared for by their grandmothers or great-mothers. Ultimately, they cared for their grandchildren as a means of "keeping the state's hands off" their grandchildren and avoiding child welfare involvement. Furthermore, the women in this study served as important vital roles for healing in Aboriginal families and communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.274 · 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