Exploring employment as a space of respite and resistance for family caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper challenges traditional definitions of work and leisure as separate concepts by suggesting that a space where individuals engage in employment (paid work) can, at the same time, be a space of respite (leisure) for employees who are also family caregivers. The research aims to better understand what caregivers perceive as ideal respite space, what that space means to them, how the space where employment takes place fits that ideal and what forces restrict caregivers' ability to engage with employment as a space of respite. The term space is used because a caregiver's presence in a particular space (inside or outside of a place) gives it meaning that is simultaneously social, political and emotional. We report on a qualitative intrinsic case study of primary caregivers who are both employed and providing care to relatives with dementia. Using a reflective iterative process, 12 participants were recruited and interviewed from two Canadian provinces in 2013/14. Using a non-temporal view of respite facilitated the identification of employment as an important space for caregivers to experience effective respite. Although this connection has been noted by other scholars, our research goes beyond this to identify four forces that create challenges for caregivers who want to maintain engagement with employment as a space of respite. These forces are internalised socialisation, family and organisational pressures and government policy. In addition, this research is one of the first to suggest ways that caregivers resist these forces. In concluding remarks, we reflect on the limitations of the study and offer suggestions for further research aimed at elucidating the spatiality of caregiver respite and the complex and dynamic aspects of resistance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".