Understanding Aging and Disability Perspectives on Home Care: Uncovering Facts and Values in Public-Policy Narratives and Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every public-policy problem can be defined in terms of its empirical ("facts") and normative ("values") dimensions and the interrelationship between them. An understanding of the connection between facts and values at the foundation of the home care policy debate in the Canadian health-care system is developed through the application of an analytical framework based on the concept of "narrative frame" analysis. The literature on home care policy reports and recommendations is examined within this conceptual structure – including especially publications and reports from the federal government, national organizations, and the aging and disability communities. Finally, observations and conclusions about the significance of home care policy discourse, and of the differences between the aging and disability constituencies in this debate, are offered as a guide for deconstructing the public-policy process.
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 | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".