HOW MEDICAL OBJECTS, MEAL PREP ASSISTANCE, AND RELATIONAL CULTURE IMPACT THE MEANING OF “HOME” FOR HOME CARE CLIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Home care policies, programming, and services in Canada are designed to support older adult clients to age well in their homes and communities. Because the medical model dominates programming and policy decisions about home care services, the delivery of home care services is rarely viewed as relational and intra-active, in which interdependent relationships and interactions occur between clients and care workers. This paper applies a relational lens that incorporates a symbolic interactionist perspective to analyze qualitative data from a series of three interviews over an 18-month period (2019-2021) with 12 older adult home care clients and 10 of their paid caregivers. The overall study explored care pathways for older adult home care clients who received publicly-funded home care services in Manitoba and Nova Scotia. Our analysis revealed that this exchange of affect notably materialized through meal preparation and medical devices in the client’s home. The inter-/intra-actions between clients and care workers inscribed food-related practices and medical objects with symbolic values/meanings of home that were often unique and surprising. Better awareness of the relational cultures of meal preparation and medical devices to meanings of home and how these meanings for clients are sometimes in tension with those held by caregivers, can benefit clients and enrich home care policies and service delivery
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".