MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074842067 · doi:10.3138/cja.26.suppl_1.063

Out of Place: Mediating Health and Social Care in Ontario's Long-Term Care Sector

2007· article· en· W2074842067 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamara Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth careLong-term careBusinessCommercializationChristian ministryPublic relationsManaged careSocial WelfareNursingEconomic growthMedicinePolitical scienceMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper discusses two reforms in Ontario's long-term care. The first is the commercialization of home care as a result of the implementation of a "managed competition" delivery model. The second is the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's privileging of "health care" over "social care" through changes to which types of home care and home support services receive public funding. It addresses the effects of these reforms on the state–non-profit relationship, and the shifting balance between public funding of health and social care. At a program level, and with few exceptions, homemaking services have been cut from home care, and home support services are more medicalized. With these changes, growing numbers of people no longer eligible to receive publicly funded home care services look for other alternatives: they draw available resources from home support, they draw on family and friend networks, they hire privately and pay out of pocket, they leave home and enter an institution, or they do without.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207