It’s What We Do: Māori Carers Talk About Roles, Challenges, and Coordination in Caring for Older Family Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the population of Aotearoa/New Zealand heads towards one-in-four being aged over 65-years-and-over by 2040, it is anticipated that family members will play an increasingly important role in caring for older relatives with chronic and age-related health issues. Multi-generational, and in particular three-generational living arrangements, combined with family care of older relatives are a growing trend; a trend already even evident among Māori communities. This paper reports on a study that explored the care experiences and expectations of 14 past and current Māori carers (aged 23 to 72-years) of older relatives. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded independently. The initial thematic analysis revealed nine themes and participants were invited to feedback on the summary in person or in writing. The feedback resulted in the original themes being collapsed into four (with subthemes): “Care is Normal”; “Collective Coordination of Care”; “Insider-Carer—Outsider Perspectives on Caring”; and “Societal Influences on Family Care/Carers”. Firstly, these themes highlight how Māori cultural norms infuse direct care, support, and coordination roles within family care of the older family member. Secondly, they reveal the challenges for family carers in talking about their work with others, especially (thirdly) in the face of negative attitudes towards care and carers of an older family member within wider society. These findings have implications for cultural and wider socio-political influences in socialising different groups to carer role expectations. If society is to better prepare future caregivers for their role, ongoing research is needed with the various cultural groups in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".