Bibliographic record
Abstract
With population aging, the ethnic diversity among older adults in Canada is of great significance as the main source of immigrants to Canada has shifted from Europe to Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Researchers have pointed out the need to use an ethnno-cultural lens in order to address social and health inequalities. Ethnic diversity and multiculturalism in Canadian society highlight the importance of understanding needs of ethnically diverse older adults and their caregivers to prevent marginalzation of certain groups of older adults. While prior research confirms that there are ethnic differences in beliefs about and attitudes toward family caregiving for older adults, there appeared to be a lack of evidence about ethnic variations in actual caregiving behaviors. The objective of this research is to increase understanding about ethnicity and care in Canada through an examination of ethnic variations in the family and friend care context and in access to health services. The data used for this study were from Statistics Canada’s 2002 General Social Survey on Aging and Social Support linked with selected modules of the 2001 Canadian Community Health Survey. The statistical analyses included multinomial logistic regression, logistic regression, and Tobit models. Overall, findings from this research pointed out that regardless of ethnicity, family and friend caregivers manage care responsibilities among a small number of care network members. Ethnicity was not a strong predictor of care network types, but it influenced the interface between family and friend care and formal care as well as the use of health services. Findings indicated that there may be ethnic-specific social capital that cannot be explained by care network structure, which influenced older adults’ use of health services. These findings point to the need for futrther research to better understand ethnicity and social capital for caregiving. As well, the findings of this research highlight the need for enhancing support for family and friend caregivers. As the Canadian population continues to age, public programs to help sustain their care networks are crucial, particularly as many older adults have only a few people who provide care to them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".