Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the emphasis on aging in place and care at home, researchers have devoted considerable attention to the types of support that older people receive from formal home care providers and from family caregivers. Yet, research rarely considers how older care recipients' self-care practices intersect with the care they receive from others. To address this gap, this poster draws on qualitative interviews with 33 older people receiving care at home, and a grounded theory method of analysis, to describe how care recipients' self-care practices intersect with formal home care and family caregiving. Findings suggest three themes that give insight on older care recipients' self-care practices. First, some participants practiced self-care to minimize their reliance on formal and family care providers. Second, other participants sought and accepted support and guidance on self-care practices, from both formal and family care providers. Third, some participants practiced self-care to "get by" with daily activities when both formal home care and family care were insufficient. These findings enrich understandings of the everyday realities of the older people around whom systems of care are organized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".