The contractualisation of care: the emergence of family agreements in an ageing world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In life one thing is certain: we will all age. Due to increased life expectancy, the number of people affected by age-related illnesses, particularly dementia, who require ongoing, extended care will increase. Therefore, the question of who will care for older people is significant. Currently, limited places in aged care facilities, coupled with government policies encouraging people to age in the community, means that there is pressure on adult children, particularly daughters, to provide unpaid care for their older parent(s). Today, however, many adult children cannot afford to reduce their working hours to care for their older parents. Older parents are therefore compensating their adult children for the care they provide (or will provide) by transferring assets to them during the parents’ lifetime. To facilitate these transactions, family care agreements (Family Agreements) are increasingly being entered into. This thesis considers some of the legal issues associated with Family Agreements to better understand whether (if at all) Family Agreements are giving effect to the intentions of the parties whilst adequately protecting them from harmful outcomes. The thesis outlines ways in which the law has responded to population ageing and identifies areas that require further attention. This thesis mainly considers the position in Queensland, Australia, but also draws on case law and research from countries with comparable legal, health and aged care systems, particularly the United Kingdom, New Zealand and British Columbia, Canada. It concludes that the law in Queensland inadequately protects older people who wish to enter into Family Agreements. Further, it demonstrates that caregiving adult children are vulnerable to post-mortem equitable claims challenging the validity of the transaction(s) under Family Agreements, particularly because the law does not sufficiently recognise or value care work.
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 | 0.036 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".