MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996604372 · doi:10.1300/j027v22n04_05

‘You Need Them to Know Your Ways’: Service Users' Views About Valued Dimensions of Home Care

2004· article· en· W1996604372 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jane Aronson

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Services Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Qualitative researchNursingNeed to knowPsychologyMedicineSociologyBusinessMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dominant approaches to evaluating supportive home care tend to be 'top-down,' undertaken from the vantage points of funding bodies and professionals, rather than from the perspectives of service users. A longitudinal, qualitative study of women receiving home care in Ontario, Canada explored their accounts of what constitutes good and responsive care. Participants identified four dimensions of care that they particularly valued: Minimized exposure, being known, staying in charge, and being able to speak. The implications of their perspectives for home care practice, evaluation and organization are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Services QuarterlySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207