‘Add info and stir’: an institutional ethnographic scoping review of family care-givers’ information work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Family care-givers are increasingly expected to find, understand and use information to meet the complex needs of older adults in their care. A significant number of studies, however, continue to report that care-givers’ information needs are unmet. Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, I examined 72 articles for the range and extent of available research on the information work done by family care-givers of community-dwelling older adults living with dementia. To untangle the complex relationship between information and care, this scoping review maps out (a) the ways scholarly literature conceptualises the informational components of family care-givers’ work and (b) the degree to which scholarly research acknowledges these components as work. An institutional ethnography inflection enhanced the scoping review framework, enabling the privileging of lived experiences, questioning of assumptions of language used, attending to authors’ positioning and highlighting care-givers’ information work made invisible throughout the processes of academic research.
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 | 0.154 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".