Social Capital and Formal Volunteering Among Family and Unpaid Caregivers of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from 1745 caregivers in the National Study of Caregiving (2017), this study explores the connection between caregiving and formal volunteering by identifying the relationship between social capital and formal volunteering among family and other unpaid caregivers of older adults. In addition, this study examines the representative prevalence of formal volunteering in caregivers. We conducted logistic regression models along with established volunteerism correlates from the prior research literature. Approximately a quarter of caregivers participated in volunteering (25.4%). Being male, having higher educational attainment, being a spouse, living separately from the care recipient, caregiving for multiple care recipients, having a better quality of relationship with the care recipient, having better psychological well-being, receiving more social support, attending religious services, and participating in group activity were positively associated with formal volunteer participation. Findings underscore the role of both human and social capital, including the caregiving context, in formal volunteering among caregivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".