Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bachelor thesis focuses on age of gypsy seniors. The main focus of my bachelor thesis is to describe the age of gypsy seniors, their needs and subjective perception of a social status in a family. Also to find out reasons why the gypsy seniors are not being placed in a retirement home and to describe the way how the gypsy people take care of their seniors. The bachelor thesis consists of expressions such as gypsy, age, social status and social work. It also describes the history of gypsies from the beginning of their mentioning until our present. I focus on gypsy family, their tradition and the age of seniors. At the age I focus on the main needs and occurring changes. My research goals was to find out reasons the gypsy seniors are not being placed in the retirement home. I chose three age categories of gypsy seniors for my research. The first category are seniors from 65 to 70 years, the second category are seniors from 71 to 80 years and the third category are seniors from 80 years +. During my research I found out that I am not able to obtain the third category since I had the informants based on the snow ball technique, therefore no one from my informants knew any senior older 80 years. This is the reason why my is my research based on two categories only. Next the research focuses on the second category. This category is about offsprings of the gypsy seniors. Half structured interviews were done with eight gypsy seniors and their eight offsprings. The result of this work was to find out the opinion of the gypsy seniors and their offsprings on the retirement home. Also how the gypsies take care of their seniors and what needs the seniors have. I hope and believe that everyone will benefit from the knowledge of this bachelor thesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".