MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002640209 · doi:10.1177/1084822313501077

Researching Triads in Home Care

2013· article· en· W2002640209 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ariella Lang, Marilyn Macdonald, Jan Storch, Lynn Stevenson, Lori Mitchell, Tanya Barber, Sheri Roach, Lynn Toon, Melissa Griffin, Anthony Easty, Cherie Curry, Hélène Lacroix, Susan Donaldson, Diane Doran, Régis Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Management & Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCapital District Health AuthorityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchVictorian Order of NursesDalhousie UniversityWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityCanadian Hospice Palliative Care AssociationIsland HealthUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Health Services Research FoundationAlberta Health Services
KeywordsNursingQualitative researchQuality (philosophy)PerceptionBusinessMedicinePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Home care demand in Canada has more than doubled in recent years. While research related to safety in home care is growing, it lags behind that of patient safety in institutional settings. One of the gaps in the literature is the study of the perceptions of home care triads (clients, their unpaid caregivers, and paid providers). Thus, the objectives of this qualitative study were to describe the safety challenges of home care triads and to further understand the multiple dimensions of safety that contribute to or reduce safety concerns for these triads. Findings indicate that clients, unpaid caregivers, and providers struggle in the home care system. Home care models that are client centered need to be considered to provide seamless, quality, sustainable home care.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0290.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Management & PracticeSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207