The Socialization of Unpaid Family Caregivers: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As unpaid family caregiving of older adults becomes increasingly prevalent, it is imperative to understand how family caregivers are socialized and how they understand the caregiving role. This PRISMA-ScR-based scoping review examines the published literature between 1995–2019 on the socialization of potential and current unpaid family caregivers of older adults. Of 4,599 publications identified, 47 were included. Three perspectives of socialization were identified: (1) role acculturation ; (2) role negotiation and identification ; and (3) specialized role learning . The findings show how socialization involves different contexts (e.g., cultures), imperatives for action (e.g., circumstances), socialization agents (e.g., family), processes (e.g., modeling), and internal (e.g., normalization) and external (e.g., identification) consequences for caregivers. Future research could fruitfully explore how caregivers manage key turning points within the socialization process, disengage from the caregiving role, and negotiate the socialization and individualization processes within diverse cultural and funding contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".