Perspectives of only children on the use of smart technologies for transnational family care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult-only children who migrate face challenges to manage their caregiving responsibilities towards older parents transnationally. We investigated the opportunities and gaps of smart remote monitoring and robotic technologies to meet these family care needs of migrants permanently residing in Europe. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants currently provided minimal and by-in-large emotional care to parents living mostly in Asia, but anticipated challenges with parents’ increasing age and health issues. Studied technologies may ameliorate informational opacity, alert for emergency support, and strengthen emotional care. Participants also identified barriers that prevented these benefits to be fully realized, such as complexity, lack of maturity to practically support in emergencies, and questionable cost-effectiveness. Overall, transnational carers face heightened burdens to family care and were hopeful to integrate these new tools in their care albeit with barriers. Building on existing literature, the technologies included in our study could contribute to further legitimizing the commitment and work of transnational family carers.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it