Narratives of Personhood and Caregiving in Ontario Long-Term Care Homes During COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on narratives recorded from family members of residents in long-term care homes in Ontario, Canada, during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, in this paper, I present a two-pronged argument. First, following Taylor (2008) and Seaman (2018, 2020) I suggest that family caregiving for residents of long-term care homes helps to sustain residents’ personhood: the recognition of their identity as an ongoing participant in their social universe. The second part of my argument is that caregiving is a multifaceted and paradoxical endeavour. While caregiving can be a transformative and reciprocal practice of self-actualization (cf. Kleinman 2012; Kleinman and van der Geest 2009), at times it can also be troubled, ambivalent, and stressful (Cook and Trumble 2020). At its best, caregiving is a two-way street, enabling the maintenance of personhood for the care recipient, and validating the caregiver’s sense of ‘moral agency,’ or what medical anthropologist Neely Myers (2015, 13) defines as the capacity to be recognized in one’s local sphere as a good person who can make intimate connections to others. When caregiving goes awry, however, it leads to frustration, despair, and a sense of moral failure for the caregiver. For the care recipient, non-recognition and the loss of personhood can lead to social death and may also hasten physical decline. I conclude that for both professional and family caregivers of long-term care residents, systemic improvement of social and material support is needed to mitigate the challenges inherent in the recognition of personhood in caregiving relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".