How formal navigators interpret their roles supporting families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how formal navigators interpret their roles supporting families of older adults. Design/methodology/approach This study was an interpretive inquiry informed by critical gerontology and discourse analytic methods. Interview data were collected and analyzed from 22 formal service providers who helped older adults and their families navigate health and social care resources in one Western Canadian city. Findings Although acknowledging structural barriers to service access, participants emphasized individual empowerment as their dominant strategy, interpreting their roles as providing information and education about services. In part, these interpretations may reflect the limited nature of their ability to help broker access or advocate; in part, they may also reflect the broader political and economic discourses surrounding care in Canada. Research limitations/implications When providers position navigation and access to care as individual problems, this can obscure structural burden as well as potential inequities among older adults. Future research should examine whether navigational role interpretations are similar or different to those of navigators in other regions. Navigators in other health and social care contexts may enact differing meanings in their work. Practical implications Although formal public navigators can play an important role, approaches that go beyond providing information may better meet families’ needs for support. Originality/value This is one of the first studies focused specifically on providers’ interpretations of the meaning of navigational work in health and social care for older adults, and to extend a critical gerontological gaze toward the issue of system navigation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".