Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caring for older adults is relational, complex, and multifaceted; it implies both private and public concerns. In Western societies, it is colored by ideals of autonomy and self‐determination. However, it also can be understood through a continuum of interdependence, where an older adult's care needs vary by their cognitive and physical capacities, implying a range of care relationships and contexts of care. Contexts of formal care include clinical settings and long‐term care facilities, where care is paid and formally organized. Paid care workers, especially (im)migrant laborers, provide care to older adults in a variety of living situations, from the adult's home to residential facilities. An important source of unpaid, informal care for older adults in the community is kin caregiving, which entails changes to relationships and identities. While bringing meaning and satisfaction, it can also lead to relational conflict, caregiver burden, and burnout. Future research should explore the structural conditions of paid care work, cultural stereotyping of care workers, and culturally responsive practices of care for older adults from Indigenous or other marginalized communities. Communication scholars can also contribute to innovative art‐based interventions in caring for older adults, as well as planning for inclusive design.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".