Respecting your rights : a guide to the rights of people living in British Columbia long term care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This booklet answers common questions about living in care facilities (including intermediate-, multi-level-, private-, and extended care facilities).Table of Contents: Introduction. 1. Your Right to Be Treated with Dignity and Respect: Your right to be treated as an adult; Your right to be treated with respect; Your right to be treated as a person capable of making your own decisions. 2. Your Right to Personal Choices: Your right to personal lifestyle choices; Your right to choices about your personal space; Your right to do things that you enjoy; Your right to be with people that you enjoy; Your right to decide if you want help. 3. Your Right to Good Care: Your right to trained staff capable of meeting your individual needs; Your right to have your care needs assessed; Your right to feel secure about continuing to receive care. 4. Your Right to Make Health Care Decisions: Your right to make your own health care decisions; Your right to know your plan of care; Your right to know about matters affecting your health; Your right to see your records; Your right to accept or refuse care; Your right to have someone speak for you. 5. Your Right to Privacy: Your right to personal privacy; Your right to privacy during care and grooming; Your right to privacy of personal and medical information. 6. Your Right to Safety and Security: Your right to a safe environment; Your right to expect a reasonable response to your needs; Your right to freedom from restraints; Your right to be free from physical, emotional or mental harm.7. Your Right to Personal Freedoms: Your right to basic freedoms as a citizen; Your right to be free from discrimination. 8. Your Right to Speak Up: Your right to have concerns and problems dealt with fairly and quickly; Your right to speak out about problems; If a problem happens, what can I do?; How others can help you; Suggestions for problem solving; Are there limits to speaking out?; Are there ways to prevent problems? 9. Resources and Contacts
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".