Ubuntu philosophy, old-age humanism and eldercare ethics during COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a quantitative re-analysis that evaluates eldercare ethics during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the ubuntu-inflected communal care framework, grounded in interdependence, compassion and mutual responsibility, with conventional biomedical infection-control protocols. The article contends that an ubuntu-based eldercare framework not only preserves dignity and strengthens community bonds in crises, but produces significantly greater well-being than approaches centred solely on clinical detachment. A critical examination of extant studies on eldercare and loneliness among seniors across different sociocultural contexts, such as Austria and South Africa, highlights how standard infection-control measures, when implemented without communal safeguards, exacerbate elders’ social isolation and emotional distress. The analysis reveals that current eldercare systems have yet to integrate protective practices such as communal rituals, shared decision-making and intergenerational reciprocity. The article thus proposes a transformative eldercare framework grounded in ubuntu and elder humanism that embeds community “care webs” and “care ethics” to advance equity, participatory governance resilience and compassion in crisis response and everyday practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".