Impoverishment of Practice: Analysis of Effects of Economic Discourses in Home Care Case Management Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home care is a health sector under increasing pressure. Demand is often said to be outstripping capacity, with constant change and retrenchment distinguishing features of the current context. This paper takes a reading of the current conditions of home care using data gathered during a field study of home care case management practices conducted in 2004. As economic discourses become increasingly influential in determining responses to client situations, case managers (and their managers) find themselves with limited capacity to exercise control over their practices. A growing gap between professionally influenced discourses--those presumably intended to guide practice--and organizational priorities creates a dissonance for case managers as the political-ethical dimensions of their practices are displaced by budget "realities." For front-line workers, such displacement cannot be sustained in their face-to-face encounters with clients, leading to a growing sense of frustration and powerlessness among these highly skilled practitioners.
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 | 0.043 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".