MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scale as an explanatory concept: evaluating Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit

2010· article· en· W1531168390 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melissa Giesbrecht, Valorie A. Crooks, Allison Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueArea · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)SociologyHuman geographyFront lineRelevance (law)PsychologyNursingPublic relationsMedicineSocial sciencePolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of ‘scale’ and usage of this term have raised much debate within human geography over the past 25 years. At the same time, these very debates have developed the concept dramatically by offering new considerations of its use. Building on notions that scale is experienced and that scalar concepts offer a vocabulary to articulate complex phenomena, this analysis aims to explore the relevance of scale as an explanatory concept used by informal family caregivers and front‐line health and social care workers when discussing their experiences with a Canadian social programme, the Compassionate Care Benefit (CCB). The goal of the CCB is to provide income assistance and job security to those who take temporary leave from employment to care for a terminally ill family member. As part of a larger evaluative study on the CCB, semi‐structured interviews with 57 family caregivers and 50 front‐line health and social care workers from across Canada were conducted and transcripts were thematically analysed. Emerging from analysis of both datasets was the common usage of scalar concepts, specifically ‘region’, ‘community’ and ‘home’. Respondents employed these scalar categories to reference both differences and relationships in highly spatial and comparative ways, and also to organise and articulate their thoughts in ways meaningful to them and their lives in place. Based upon these scalar categories and issues highlighted by respondents, particular spatial challenges and inequities are illuminated, and implications for the CCB and its administration are identified. These findings provide insight into the complex ways family caregivers and front‐line health and social care workers make sense of their world and more specifically, understand how federal programmes like the CCB operate. By considering how such programmes are experienced in scalar ways, knowledge can be maximised and thus, informed decision‐makers can more effectively meet the needs of programme users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAreaSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207