Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many older people are admitted to long-term residential care (LTRC) when families are unable to support them living at home. However, this does not mean that families cease to be involved, or that they simply adopt the role of “friendly visitor”. Rather, it is increasingly recognized that families make important contributions to care work in these settings which are complex and poorly understood. To address this gap in understanding, we are conducting a critical ethnography of family care work in three LTRC settings in British Columbia, Canada. We discuss a sub-set of findings as a case study directly addressing the role of gender in how family care work is enacted. We conducted a thematic analysis of data from the family of an 87 year old woman living in a 75 bed publicly-owned facility. This included in-depth interviews with three sons (5 hrs), a room-mate (1.5 hrs), and participant observation of family visits (4 hrs). Findings are integrated around concepts of masculine roles and relations in the evolving context of family caregiving, drawing attention to themes of organizing care, expressing commitment, and creating comfort. These practices are further interpreted in light of how the men took up issues of age and culture through family story. We discuss these findings in relation to our knowledge translation goals: namely, transforming family involvement in the complex socio-political milieu of LTRC will mean taking into account issues of gender, and specifically the experiences and perspectives of men who are involved in family care work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".