Cuidar de quem cuida de idosos dependentes: por uma política necessária e urgente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The situation of caregivers and family caregivers of dependent older adults is presented and discussed, highlighting their dedication, problems, and possible recommendations to value them. The task of caring is known to be eminently feminine, invisible, unpaid, but affects society as a whole. Policies of some European countries, Canada, and the United States in favor of male and female caregivers are described. However, most existing support models have gaps. The laws and regulations enacted have been poorly comprehensive, inorganic, and the family remains responsible for long-lived relatives who have lost their autonomy. In many countries, besides other measures, the tendency is to integrate the family care as the first PHC level, universalizing support to caregivers. One must not be forgotten that the tendency to keep dependent older adults at home is acquiescence to their desire, but it also hides the delegation of responsibility from the State to families through dehospitalization and deinstitutionalization policies. In Brazil, the issue has not yet entered the public policy radar, although it is urgent because of the accelerated increase of the elderly population, particularly those aged 80 and over.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".