MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gender-based analysis of working-carer men: a North American scoping review

2018· article· en· W2793463925 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Maynard, Chloe Ilagan, Bharati Sethi, Allison Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Care and Caring · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Coping (psychology)PsychologyQualitative researchGerontologyApplied psychologyMedicineClinical psychologySocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this scoping review is to find all existing North American literature on male working carers and compare this information with female working carers. Searches were performed using various databases, published between 1996 and 2016. A total of 506 articles were found and 45 ( n = 45) met all inclusion criteria. Five qualitative themes were identified: caregiving characteristics; motives for caring; work impacts; health impacts; and caring in the workplace and coping strategies. This review narrows the gap in the literature with respect to the similarities and differences between male and female working carers, and the way in which they approach caregiving tasks.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Care and CaringSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207