Proche aidance d’aînés et appartenance ethnoculturelle au Québec : l’apport d’une analyse quantitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The number of informal caregivers is expected to increase along with global aging, particularly in countries struggling with shortages of health care professionals, such as in Quebec (Canada). In a society built on immigration, it is more than relevant to question the prevalence of the role of informal caregivers among ethnocultural communities of immigrant origin. To the best of our knowledge, no study has quantitatively studied ethnic informal caregivers for these communities in Québec. Our exploratory research aims to fill this gap. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: This research aims to explore the influence of ethnocultural affiliation in a minority and immigration context, on the probability of becoming a caregiver in Quebec in a minority and immigration context. RESULTS: The chances of becoming an informal caregiver are high for those born in Canada who participate in religious activities and are female. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant association between being an informal caregiver and birth location. Those born outside of Canada have fewer chances of being an informal caregiver, reflecting biases in Canadian immigration policies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".