MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discharge decision‐making with older people: The influence of the institutional environment

2006· article· en· W2014246444 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Moats

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationPerspective (graphical)Qualitative researchRehabilitationFace (sociological concept)Older peoplePsychologyOccupational therapyNursingApplied psychologyMedicineGerontologySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aim: Occupational therapists often participate in decision‐making about postdischarge accommodations. This paper presents the findings of a study that identified and explored institutional factors influencing discharge accommodation decision‐making with older people, from the perspective of occupational therapists. Methods: Qualitative, semistructured, face‐to‐face interviews were conducted with 10 occupational therapists. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed for the presence and emergence of themes. Results: Decision‐making processes were influenced by the institutional environment. The medical model and pressure for fast decisions seemed to impede client‐centred processes in acute settings. Conclusions: When possible, decision‐making about long‐term care needs to occur in community or longer‐stay rehabilitation settings that allow time for negotiated client‐centred processes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207