Emotional Geographies of Home: Place Identities Among Senior Women Residing in a Long-Term Care Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to document the meanings and identities attached to the concept of ‘home’ among older women residing in long-term care. The study is based upon semi-structured, open-ended interviews with eleven senior women who reside in a long-term care home in The City of London, Ontario. This study contributes towards theoretical and methodological debates by combining critical humanism, feminism and the newly developing body of work called ‘emotional geographies’ in its approach. Along with the interview, the novel method of using the body as an ‘instrument of research’ is utilized (Longhurst, 2008). The methodology allows for ‘emotional spaces’ occupied by the participants to be revealed and documented. Findings problematize and provide nuance to previous studies about ‘home’. In particular, my findings demonstrate that spatialities, temporalities, boundaries, tension, and paradox need to be considered when theorizing, and more importantly, legislating ‘home’ into public policy. The landscape of the long-term care ‘home’ is identified to be located simultaneously and paradoxically ‘elsewhere’ – it is displaces from the ‘concrete’ wall of the long-term care institution – while being closely tied to the concept of a changing and fluid body and boundary zones that the body questions. The findings contribute to social theory about the experience of place, while having practical implications for policymakers, managers of long-term care facilities and senior citizens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".