Perspectives on Care at Home for Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edited volume constitutes an excellent addition to debates on domiciliary care for older persons.Recent decades have witnessed an unprecedented growth of frail older persons who require some level of personalised care, if they are not to enter long-term care.In this respect, a key challenge facing all social systems is to provide good quality of care that at the same time follows the values of sustainability and equity.Perspectives on Care at Home for Older People offers a critical analysis of how to best respond to the perceived challenges of home care for frail older adults, providing outstanding responses to two crucial questions: First, how do the actualities of people's daily lives articulate with ideological, practical and programmatic discourses and material conditions?And second, what are the conditions of possibility for ''care'' where the frailties of older people matter?It answers such dilemmas by offering case studies (both policy-and practice-oriented empirical studies) from countries that share a basic orientation to social welfare, namely Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.The chapters also set out a critical agenda for the development of equitable and sustainable practices in present times.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".