MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403694198 · doi:10.1017/s0714980824000291

Being a Husband and Caregiver: The Adjustment of Roles When Caring for a Wife Who Has Dementia

2024· article· en· W4403694198 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary L. Miller, Elena Neiterman, Heather Keller, Carrie McAiney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeDementiaGrounded theoryPsychologyDemographicsConstruct (python library)Developmental psychologyGerontologyMedicineSociologyDiseaseQualitative researchDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As demographics and gender norms shift, more older men will be providing care for their wives living with dementia than ever before. Research on husbands as caregivers is limited and offers an incomplete picture of their role development and how they experience caregiving. This study examined husbands whose wives have dementia and how they provide care and construct their sense of self. Semi-structured interviews with 11 men aged 61–88 were conducted in Ontario, Canada. Data were analyzed using constant comparison analysis and a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach. Two categories were developed: Adapting to the Role of Caregiver and Staying a Husband. Caregiving as a husband for a wife living with dementia required revision of the role of husband to include that of caregiver by reimaging intimacy, being a protector in new ways, and finding new meanings to being a provider and the value of wealth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207