MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200214040 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.2114

Beyond the Lockdown Binary: Family Caregiver Needs for Creative Solutions During a Global Pandemic

2021· article· en· W4200214040 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gwen McGhan, Kristin Flemons, Deirdre McCaughey, Whitney Hindmarch

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPandemicIsolation (microbiology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family caregiversCaregiver burdenPsychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As COVID-19 lockdowns began in Canada last spring, family caregivers (FCGs) of people living with dementia (PLWD) found themselves facing a catch-22: they and their family members were often most at risk of severe outcomes should they contract the virus, yet the public health measures put in place also detrimentally affected their ability to continue providing care. To understand the nuances of caregiver experiences during the pandemic, we conducted 9 focus groups with 19 FCGs of PLWD in the Calgary region in summer 2020. Caregivers reported negative outcomes resulting from decreased services for both themselves and the PLWD, including increased isolation, poor mental health, and accelerated dementia progression. Caregivers also emphasized the importance thinking beyond the binary of either locking down or opening up; rather, we must find creative solutions to safely continue providing supports to caregivers. This presentation explores FCG suggestions for balancing COVID-19 risk against caregiver needs.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicImpact of Technology on Adolescents→French-language works237,207→