MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285360581 · doi:10.46692/9781447359319.007

Relations between formal and family care: divergent practices in care at home for people living with dementia

2021· other· en· W4285360581 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyPsychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter we analyse a theoretical and practical problem of longstanding: what are good ways to think about how family care practices and those of the formal system relate? Few would disagree that the ways that families and formal care systems handle daily life are different, with, as noted in Chapter 1, extensive research efforts undertaken over many decades addressing issues that arise from these differences (see, for example, Twigg, 1989; Bond, 1992; Lyons and Zarit, 1999; Zarit et al, 1999; Ward-Griffin and McKeever, 2000; Wiles, 2003; Büscher et al, 2011; Stephan et al, 2018; O’Shea et al, 2019). Yet, despite a long interest in, and study of, relations between family care practices and those of the formal system, difficulties persist, with families reluctant at times to use services that are meant to be helpful or using these supports without experiencing them as helpful. In this chapter we don't try to ‘solve’ this problem but rather, we try to understand it differently by following the experiences of the Cruz family, introduced in Chapter 4, and specifically focus on those events in our Field notes that show differences between the family's care practices and those of formal systems. The aim is to consider what, in these specific situations, may be at stake, what types of relations are being enacted and what types of relations might be helpful. This leads us not to ‘general rules’ stipulating what should be done, or broad claims about how these differing practices should relate, but rather, to a different, more complicated and more located sense of the problem. As noted previously, the question we are exploring is not a new one, but in this chapter we try to work through it in a new way. To do this we draw on Isabelle Stengers’ (2005a, 2005b, 2015 [2009], 2018, 2019) writing about an ‘ecology of practices’ to theorize the idea of a divergence in family and formal care practices that has implications for care. In Stengers’ view, what makes a practice diverge is also what makes it a particular practice; overriding these differences and imposing similarity, such as efforts to ‘professionalize’ family caregiving, can damage the practice so aligned.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→