MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Problematic caregiving activities among family carers of older adults with disabilities

2021· article· en· W3170569119 on OpenAlexaff
Oladele Ademola Atoyebi, Maude Beaudoin, François Routhier, Claudine Auger, Louise Demers, Andrew Wister, Michelle Plante, W. Ben Mortenson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Care and Caring · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalSimon Fraser UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisAffect (linguistics)PsychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyMedicineQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family carers of older adults with disability often both experience stress that may affect their ability to provide care, and find some caregiving activities differentially challenging. The objectives of this research are to identify the caregiving activities that are most problematic to carers and to explore the reasons why carers found these activities challenging. Participants were past or current carers aged 19 years and older. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, data were collected through a survey and open-ended interviews. Thematic analysis revealed that an activity was likely to be more problematic if it had to be coordinated with other caregiving needs or where a care recipient’s disability was severe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Care and CaringSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207