Association between attitudes of filial responsibility and parent caregiving behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the association between attitudes of filial responsibility and adult child caregivers’ behaviors in the Southern Region of Brazil.Methods: Cross-sectional study with 100 child caregivers of older adults. The data were collected through an interview using the protocol of filial responsibility adapted and validated to Brazilian Portuguese. Filial Expectation and Filial Piety scales evaluated the attitudes of filial responsibility. Caring behaviors assessed were: instrumental support, emotional, financial support, and companionship. The variables that presented p< .20 value in the bivariate analysis were inserted into a multivariate Poisson regression model.Results: Financial and emotional support behaviors were significantly associated with filial piety (p = .050 and p = .001, respectively) and filial expectation (p = .013 and p = .023, respectively). Providing companionship was associated with filial piety (p = .015).Conclusion: Attitudes of filial responsibility are associated with some but not all caregiving behaviors. Brazilians caring for older parents show more similarities to Chinese than to Canadian caregivers. Furthermore, filial responsibility and caregiving behaviors are strongly affected by Brazilian social and cultural norms. Reasons are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".