Preventing Elderly Orphans: Transnational Caregiving of Romanian Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transnational caregivers are immigrants who reside and work in one country while simultaneously providing care to family members in their home country. Anthropologists have demonstrated in many cultural settings that despite geographic separation, transnational families attempt to maintain social relations, share resources, and provide care to one another. This thesis explores how Romanian migrants in Canada navigate care, a dynamic practice, within the context of sociocultural and political histories, cultural traditions, and a globalized world. It considers (1) how these migrants conceptualize aging and their migrant identity in relation to caregiving, (2) how migrants and their families maintain kin ties and care agreements, and (3) how migrants balance their personal circumstances with Romanian sociocultural expectations of care. I argue that Romania’s communist history plays a significant role in migrants’ reasons for leaving Romania, as well as in the availability of services related to elder well-being and health. Additionally, migrants and their families’ perceptions of institutional care versus family caregiving are influenced by their experiences living in Romania’s communist and post-communist eras. The stories in this thesis highlight the fact that moral values concerning care, conceptualizations of care, and actual care practices are not the same thing. This thesis shows that the Romanian migrants grew up with informal caregiving within the family home as the traditional and obligatory care practice, a value they maintain into adulthood. As such, many of them envisioned maintaining a similar routine as their parents aged – a plan that had to be readjusted after their migration. The result is a variety of care practices among my participants, with different intensities (time spent caregiving) and complexities (how many people are involved in care). The social pressures documented in this thesis are not just relevant to Romania, as many other places in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia are experiencing similar crises in elder care due to the out-migration of the younger generation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".