Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.368 | 0.352 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".