MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496661792 · doi:10.1300/j031v17n04_01

Changing the Face of Long-Term Care

2005· article· en· W1496661792 on OpenAlex
Robert L Kane

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Long-term careTerm (time)Quarter (Canadian coin)Function (biology)Quality (philosophy)Public relationsLaw and economicsBusinessInternet privacyPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceNursingSociologyHistoryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term care (LTC) for older persons is based on the wrong foundations. It is too wedded to protection and not directed enough to maximizing personal goals. Tinkering at the margins will not suffice. Bigger, bolder steps are needed. A first step is to re-examine the goals of such care and the tools we have at hand to meet them. We need to re-examine the major elements of what we have taken for granted. A number of forces must be harnessed, and in some cases effort must be redistributed. Effective collaboration will depend on shared goals. Unless LTC is viewed as something that is desired, we will never receive more than reluctant support from any quarter. Good care must be seen as making a difference; that difference can be in function or in quality of life; it may be as subtle as slowing decline, but it must be made apparent to be appreciated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it