MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024742668

Social care provision

2014· article· en· W7024742668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKent Academic Repository (University of Kent) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpouseSocial carePrimary careLow incomeQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents results about the provision of unpaid social care by adults aged 16 and over.This is defined as help or support provided to someone because of longterm physical or mental ill-health, a disability or problems relating to old age.It excludes any help given in a professional capacity or as part of a job.G 17% of adults provided unpaid help or support to other people, with women more likely than men to do so (20% and 14% respectively).G Provision of unpaid care varied by region.The highest proportions of people providing care were found in Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands for both men and women, and also in the East of England for women (21-23%).Proportions providing care were lowest in the North West for both sexes (10% for men, 16% for women), and also relatively low in the West Midlands and London among men (11-12%).G Prevalence of providing unpaid care was lowest among those in higher income households (11-13% of men, 17-20% of women in the highest two quintiles), and increased with decreasing income (16-17% of men, 23% of women in the lowest two quintiles).G There has been little change between 2011-2014 in the proportions reporting that they provide care and support.Over the period, 14-15% of men and 18-20% of women said that they did so.G Care was most commonly provided to a parent; nearly half of adults who provided care did this (49%).Men were more likely than women to provide help or support for a spouse or partner, with just under a fifth doing so (19%, compared with 12% of women).Help to other categories of family members, neighbours and friends was provided by under 10% in each case.G The people to whom care was provided varied according to the age of the carer.Those under 65 were likely to be caring for parents (44% aged 16-44, 65% aged 45-64).Among carers aged 16-44, care for a grandparent was also relatively common (21%).Older carers were more likely than younger ones to help their spouses (34% of carers aged 65 and over, compared with 7-12% in younger age groups), friends (15% and 6-7% respectively) and neighbours (16% and 3-5% respectively).G Most commonly, those who provided help and support said that they did so for between 1-9 hours in the last week (48% of adults providing care).However, a substantial proportion of men and women provided more care: 27% provided 10 or more hours in the last week.G Carers who provided at least 20 hours of care in the last week were asked about the types of activities they helped with.The most frequently mentioned were two instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs); shopping for food and getting out of the house (each 76%).Of a range of activities of daily living (ADLs), the most common was helping people take their medicine (52%), followed by help with bathing, dressing and eating (between 39% and 43%).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKent Academic Repository (University of Kent)Same topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207