MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042296627 · doi:10.1177/0733464807312236

Caregivers' Aspirations, Realities, and Expectations: The CARE Tool

2008· article· en· W2042296627 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 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux CavendishUniversité du Québec à MontréalMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaFocus groupPsychologyFamily caregiversNursingNeeds assessmentMedical educationGerontologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caregivers to family and friends are increasingly recognized as essential players in the continued shift of care of dependent populations to the community. Currently, Canadian provincial home care programs have neither a comprehensive policy nor an assessment regarding caregivers' needs. This article describes an assessment tool that takes into account caregivers' reality and conditions and that situates them as essential partners with the formal system and reports on the validation and reliability testing of this tool. Seven sites in Quebec and Nova Scotia involving 40 assessors tested the tool with 168 caregivers. Results suggest that this comprehensive tool enables practitioners to understand caregivers' needs and situations. Focus groups with assessors and interviews with home care administrators revealed that the tool increased worker understanding and awareness of what it means to be a caregiver, ascertained the key caregiver concerns, and identified these needs in rapid succession.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.292 · 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