Women Caring for Elderly Family Members: Shaping Non-Traditional Work and Family Initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caring for a dependent elderly family member and employment are competing demands for men, and especially women, who work in the United States. Women traditionally function in the caregiving role for parents in need. Yet unlike their mothers before them, modem day women caring for elderly parents have more roles, and thus more role demands upon them. Traditional familial roles as wives, homemakers, and mothers are more often coupled with roles as paid workers and as caregiving daughters to dependent parents. Maintaining today’s families via the kin-keeping role may be increasingly difficult for the employed elder caregiver, typically a female in her mid-40s to late 50s. The burdens employed caregivers experience have effects in the workplace, for example, attendance problems and poor job performance. Yet, the research in this area is relatively sparse, especially in data on the effect of family status on numerous measures of productivity and employee performance. How research can deliver assistance in programming and policy development of eldercare benefits in the workplace by demonstrating which categories of employees (i.e., by gender, age, race, ethnicity, occupational status, and earnings) are most affected by elder caregiving and in what ways is presented. Family and work initiatives to help maintain this balance between family and job responsibilities are discussed and recommended.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".