‘Torn Apart’: Involuntary Separation and the Search for Connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placing a loved one in care does not relieve informal caregivers’ physical and emotional stresses, yet the experience of caregivers during the long process of separation has not been fully explored, especially in Canada. This study sought to identify the social processes of involuntary separation for caregiving spouses. Participants were 17 spouse-caregivers who had been involuntarily separated for an average of 20 months. All participants lived in Southern Alberta. Data were comprised of 12 individual interviews and one focus group. \nUsing Charmaz’s (2006) model of grounded theory, this study found that the basic social process of spouse-caregiver involuntary separation was connecting, which had three distinct stages: 1) Initial news and coping, 2) Adjusting to new situation, and 3) Moving forward. There were four additional categories: 1) Adjustment to separation, 2) Significant Helping Roles, 3) Family, and 4) Social world. Movement through the three stages was influenced by reciprocal connections.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".