MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022891187 · doi:10.1177/0733464802250045

Resident and Staff Ratings of Foodservices in Long-Term Care: Implications for Autonomy and Quality of Life

2003· article· en· W2022891187 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyNursing homesLong-term careQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyPsychologyMalnutritionMedicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foodservices contribute to the health status, quality of life, and autonomy of long-term care (LTC) residents, yet malnutrition is prevalent. To improve nutritional status, LTC facilities should determine which aspects of foodservices are important to residents and which provoke the most dissatisfaction. Because staff control foodservices, it is equally important to examine their beliefs. Data were collected from nine LTC facilities in Quebec. Means and t tests of differences between residents' (n = 69) and staff 's (n = 52) mean importance and satisfaction rankings of 29 foodservice items are presented. Although residents rated foodservice choice and autonomy items lower in importance, these items were generally less satisfied. Staff consistently overrated both importance and satisfaction among residents. Specific recommendations for foodservice quality improvements are discussed in relation to residents' quality of life, autonomy, and nutritional status.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.318 · 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