“I FEEL LIKE A SOMEBODY AGAIN”: THE ETHICS OF CARE IN A SHELTER FOR OLDER ADULTS FLEEING ABUSE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Elder abuse is one pathway into homelessness for older adults. Given the limited research on the experience of older adults staying in homeless shelters for victims of abuse, we conducted qualitative interviews with ten clients and five providers from an elder abuse shelter in Western Canada. Drawing on a feminist ethics of care framework, we explored what supports older survivors of abuse use to cultivate a sense of belonging at the shelter. Conducting a secondary qualitative data analysis, we identified three themes: 1) trust-building between providers and clients supports successful care-receiving by clients; 2) mutual care and caregiving by clients fosters clients’ sense of belonging; and 3) a perceived lack of care disrupts trust and impedes belonging. Our findings reveal how client trust is, in part, cultivated by providers’ acts of flexible, responsive care, supported by organizational policies and practices. In addition, clients’ acts of mutual care and caregiving towards other clients, friends, family, strangers, and animals contributes to their sense of belonging. In contrast, a perceived lack of care could be a source of conflict, though such experiences can be repaired through responsive care by providers and clients. Findings highlight the importance of shelter policies and practices which conceptualize older clients fleeing abuse as part of a multidirectional web of caring relations in fostering belonging. This study has implications for shelter program design that prioritizes trust-building through flexible, responsive care by providers, and recognizes client needs for care-receiving, caregiving, and mutual care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".