Using the RUG—III classification system for understanding the resource intensity of persons with intellectual disability residing in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1991, the Minimum Data Set 2.0 (MDS 2.0) has been the mandated assessment in US nursing homes. The Resource Utilization Groups III (RUG-III) case-mix system provides person-specific means of allocating resources based on the variable costs of caring for persons with different needs. Retrospective analyses of data collected on a sample of 9707 nursing home residents (2.4% had an intellectual disability) were used to examine the fit of the RUG-III case-mix system for determining the cost of supporting persons with intellectual disability (intellectual disability). The RUG-III system explained 33.3% of the variance in age-weighted nursing time among persons with intellectual disability compared to 29.6% among other residents, making it a good fit among persons with intellectual disability in nursing homes. The RUG-III may also serve as the basis for the development of a classification system that describes the resource intensity of persons with intellectual disability in other settings that provide similar types of support.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".