MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040063631 · doi:10.1080/08959420.2013.766073

The Woodwork Effect: Estimating It and Controlling the Damage

2013· article· en· W2040063631 on OpenAlex
William G. Weissert, Lucy Faye Frederick

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing homesMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)GerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many patients in home- and community-based services (HCBS) are not people who, without HCBS, would be in nursing homes. Those attracted to HCBS tend to be people who are younger, better supported, less dependent, and more mentally intact than their nursing home counterparts. Studies show that only about a quarter of the clients selected as likely to enter nursing homes within the coming year are likely to do so, even though they receive no HCBS. Of the 43 studies reported, more than two-thirds had rates of control group nursing home admission of less than 20%. Most patients would also be likely to have experienced only a short nursing home stay even if they were admitted. The result: Receiving HCBS reduced nursing home use rates on average by only a small percentage, not enough to offset the costs of HCBS. Moreover, both older and more recent studies show only small to insignificant effects on most adverse patient outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.382 · 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