MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W649472920 · doi:10.4324/9781315789125

Caregiving Systems

2019· book· en· W649472920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contents: K.W. Schaie, Preface. Part I:Informal Systems of Care. S.H. Zarit, Introduction to Part I. E. Yu, W.T. Liu, Z-Y. Wang, P.S. Levy, R. Katzman, M-Y. Zhang, G-Y. Qu, F-F. Chen, Caregivers of the Cognitively Impaired and the Disabled in Shanghai, China. L.C. Yu, Intergenerational Transfer of Resources Within Policy and Cultural Contexts. L.M. Burton, S. Sorensen, Temporal Context and the Caregiver Role: Perspectives from Ethnographic Studies of Multigeneration African-American Families. R. Morycz, Caregiving Families and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. W.R. Avison, R.J. Turner, S. Noh, K.N. Speechley, The Impact of Caregiving: Comparisons of Different Family Contexts and Experiences. A.M. Matthews, Issues in the Examination of the Caregiving Relationship. R. Schulz, G.M. Williamson, R. Morycz, D.E. Beigel, Changes in Depression Among Men and Women Caring for an Alzheimer's Patient. M.A. Smyer, Caregiving Research: Juggling While Walking. L.I. Pearlin, S.H. Zarit, Research into Informal Caregiving: Current Perspectives and Future Directions. Part II:Formal Systems of Care. S.H. Zarit, Introduction to Part II. C. Harrington, Social Health Maintenance Organizations: An Innovative Financing and Service Delivery Model. D. Brannon, Are SHMOs Remedies to Bureaucracy? G. Niederehe, Public Policy Issues Related to the SHMO Demonstrations and Alzheimer's Disease. L. Levesque, Quebec Home-Care Services: A Program at the Local Community Level. C.J. Whitlatch, The Direction of Home-Based Community Care in Quebec: The Effects on Caregiving Families. J.T. Mullan, Barriers to the Use of Formal Services Among Alzheimer's Caregivers. M.A.P. Stephens, Understanding Barriers to Caregivers' Use of Formal Services: The Caregiver's Perspective. R.A. Kane, J.D. Penrod, Family Caregiving Policies: Insights from an Intensive Longitudinal Study. A.L. Townsend, Methodological Issues Confronting Research on Service Use Among Caregiving Families. S.H. Zarit, L.I. Pearlin, Family Caregiving: Integrating Informal and Formal Systems for 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1190.026

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207