MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049828374 · doi:10.1177/07364802021002006

Community-Based Services for the Taking but Few Takers: Reasons for Nonuse

2002· article· en· W2049828374 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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careCommunity serviceNursing homesService (business)NursingPsychologyCognitive impairmentGerontologyMedicineCognitionPsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined reasons for not using nine community-based services and characteristics associated with these reasons among a sample of 293 older person–caregiver dyads in a Canadian province. The most frequent reasons were that the older person's health did not necessitate use, family/friends provided assistance, and the caregiver was unaware of the service. Cognitive impairment was associated with not using homemaker and/or cleaning services, in-home nursing services, and home-delivered meals as family/friends provided assistance; higher caregiver burden also emerged as significant for these services and personal care services. Male caregivers and caregivers with less education were more likely to be unaware of the availability of day centers, day hospitals, and formal respite services. Implications for future research and practice are highlighted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.250 · 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