MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969031906 · doi:10.1017/s071498081400052x

Exploring the Ecology of Canada’s Publicly Funded Residential Long-Term Care Bed Supply

2014· article· fr· W1969031906 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saskia Sivananthan, Malcolm Doupe, Margaret J. McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyForestryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Malgré l'augmentation de la population des personnes âgées au Canada, et la variation de stratégies de soins de longue durée (SLD) que les provinces ont mis en place, peu de recherches ont porté sur la compréhension de la mesure dans laquelle l'approvisionnement de lits des SLD résidentiels financés par l'État varient parmi les provinces, ou les facteurs influençant cette variation. Notre étude a porté sur une analyse dans laquelle nous avons examiné l'association de trois caractéristiques juridictionnelles sélectionnés avec la fourniture des lits LTC: la démographie de l'âge de la population, les ressources économiques des provinces, et les investissements provinciaux dans les soins à domicile. On n'a pas trouvé de l'écologie interjuridictionelle importante ni d'interrelation entre la variation de l'approvisionne-ment de lits des SLD avec aucune des variables étudiées. La variation entre les provinces pour le disponibilité de lits n'a également pas influencé statistiquement du jour à l'autre le niveau de soins spécifiques pour l'attente des SLD, ce qui suggère que ces jours ne sont pas influencés simplement par des différences dans l'approvisionnement de lits des SLD, et que d'autres facteurs au niveau provincial étaient en jeu.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207