‘Giving and giving back’ at the end-of-life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article is based on an ethnographic research project exploring the constitution and reproduction of exchange relationships between residents and caregivers in Swiss nursing homes and elaborating on their significance within end-of-life trajectories. The results show that despite scarce personnel, time and cost resources in old-age long-term care, exchange relationships in the sense of non-liquidating transactions are of major significance both in daily interactions and in the context of acute dying in the nursing home. Residents as well as caregivers invest in relationships that build on an informal ‘giving and giving back’. Invested goods or services are manifold and often immaterial, both on the caregivers’ and on the residents’ side. The main informal investments are: 1) permitting affection and emotional involvement 2) sharing personal information, and 3) offering extra-time. The paper demonstrates how actors exchange these goods to establish an informal dimension in their care relationships and how this dimension may influence end-of-life practices in the nursing home. Focusing on informal parts in exchange relationships allows considering care relationships from a theoretical perspective that has gained little attention so far, both in anthropological exchange theory and in disciplines concerned with care relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".