MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991789791 · doi:10.1177/1084822310388141

Research Recruitment in Home Care in an Era of Scams and Advocacy

2010· article· en· W1991789791 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Management & Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornerstoneValue (mathematics)Public relationsNursingMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recruitment is the cornerstone of research involving human beings. Most of what has been written involved institutional recruitment, yet the past two decades have seen an exponential rise in the delivery of home care. This shift has been accompanied by an increase in the volume of research conducted in homecare, and the majority of home care recipients are elderly. The elderly experience a disproportionate occurrence of consumer fraud and are increasingly reluctant to give strangers access to their homes. Advocacy groups have made formidable contributions to raising the awareness among older persons of risks to their person and finances. The aim of this article is to raise awareness of the importance of recruitment in the home care community and to recommend to researchers that they partner with community agencies and advocacy groups to inform citizens of the value of their participation in research in home care, and the benefits.

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.007
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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Management & PracticeSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207