The Bonding-Binding of Grandchildren in Long-Term Care for Family Elder: Family Values in Northern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bonding-binding process is defined as an interpersonal interaction that occurs at birth. The attached construction of bonding-binding of grandchildren in long-term care for the family elderly is considered an important issue, leading to long-term care for the family elderly in the next generation. This study was to describe the attached construction of bonding-binding of grandchildren in long-term care for family elders within a specific sociocultural environment in Northern Thailand. From May to November 2018, data was collected using a participatory observation guideline, in-depth interviews, and content analysis. Three-generation family members who cared for the dependents and grandparents were among the twenty-eight participants. The bonding-binding of grandchildren living with grandparents who provide long-term care has been divided into four levels: Family-bonding was founded on the strong relationships within the family, social-bonding construction was affected by social norms, and religious-binding incorporated the positive reciprocity taught by religion. Grandchildren’s bonidng influcens the social and spiritual lives of family elders in designing future long-term care for the next generation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".