‘Independence’ among older people receiving support at home: the meaning of daily care practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Later life care practices are closely entangled with the ideals of independence and dependence. Based on an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews with 34 people aged 65–100 receiving home care in Ontario, Canada, this article explores older people's subjective interpretations of caring for themselves ( i.e. independence) and receiving support from others ( i.e. dependence). Findings suggest that individuals construct subjective meanings of independence in relation to their changing physical capacities, and in the context of their relationships with family members, friends and formal care providers. First, participants considered their care activities to be a way of maintaining independence when they undertook certain practices with the intention of staving off dependency and future decline. Second, when they accepted assistance, many engaged in care relations that allowed them to preserve an independent identity in the face of limits to physical self-sufficiency. Third, participants reached the limits of independence when they lacked adequate assistance, and were unable to care for themselves in desirable ways. Findings illustrate how objective circumstances related to social and financial resources as well as access to formal services shape subjective interpretations, allowing some older people to hold on to independent identities while exacerbating feelings of dependency among others.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".