MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292068931 · doi:10.3390/ijerph191610075

A Survey of the Challenges Faced by Individuals with Disabilities and Unpaid Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4292068931 on OpenAlexafffund
Yashoda Sharma, Alison Whiting, Tilak Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersAccessibility Standards Canada
KeywordsUnpaid workThematic analysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPsychologyWork (physics)Gerontology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineQualitative researchSociologyEngineeringDiseaseSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected many individuals. In particular, it is likely that individuals with disabilities and unpaid caregivers were disproportionately affected, however, its exact impact is largely unknown. The primary objective of this work was to identify challenges faced by individuals with disabilities and unpaid caregivers. A secondary objective was to identify potential solutions to the major challenges experienced by both populations. Two surveys were administered online to individuals with disabilities and unpaid caregivers, respectively between September 2020 and January 2021. We used an inductive thematic analysis within an interpretivist paradigm to analyze survey responses. A total of 111 survey responses were collected amongst both surveys. Separate thematic maps were created for individuals with disabilities and unpaid caregivers, and maps were drawn to compare challenges. Potential solutions to mitigate the challenges experienced by both populations include revising financial assistance programs and improving awareness of support programs that are available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207