MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991751863 · doi:10.1300/j031v17n03_02

Provider Dilemmas with Relocation in Assisted Living

2005· article· en· W1991751863 on OpenAlex
Donna J. Munroe, Marylou Guihan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationAssisted livingService providerService (business)Public relationsBusinessNursingInternet privacyComputer scienceMedicineMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Support for increasing tenant frailty in assisted living (AL) is a complex and challenging issue. Philosophically, older persons, families, providers, and policymakers want to avoid unnecessary relocation. However, there is considerable opportunity for inconsistency in practice. We examined provider perspectives related to implementing aging-in-place, using information obtained from an evaluation of a three-year AL demonstration project in Illinois. We found differences in approaches to explicit move-out criteria, the actual application of move-out criteria, and provider willingness to develop flexible service plans. These findings raise questions for consideration in all states confronted with implementing the philosophy and intent of AL.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.370 · 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