Older Workers and Care-Giving in England: the Policy Context for Older Workers’ Employment Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers recent changes in the incidence of caring among people aged 50-64 in England and the policy context in which these have occurred. After introducing the topic, research questions addressed and methods used, it outlines findings from other research on how older workers experience and manage caring roles. It then sets out relevant public policy developments since carers were first accorded rights to recognition and services in 1995, focusing on workplace support, local services and financial help for people who reduce or quit their paid work to care. The article presents new analyses of the population censuses conducted in England in 2001 and 2011, focusing on people aged 50-64 and especially on those aged 60-64, the group in which the largest changes were seen. Theses show growth in caring at higher levels of intensity for older workers, and increases in the incidence of caring alongside paid work. To deepen understanding of these changes, the analysis also draws on data from a government survey of carers conducted in 2009-10. The concluding discussion argues that although the modest policy changes implemented since 1995 have provided some support to older workers managing work and care, more policy attention needs to be given following the sharp increase in the incidence of caring seen among people aged 50-64 in England between 2001 and 2011.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".