MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078351727 · doi:10.1353/cja.2004.0003

Characteristics of Family/Friend Care Networks of Frail Seniors

2004· review· en· W2078351727 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Fast, Norah Keating, Pam Otfinowski, Linda Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposition (language)GerontologyLong-term careHealth carePsychologyDemographyMedicineDemographic economicsNursingSociologyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper tests assumptions often made by policy makers and practitioners that networks of family, friends, and neighbours are able to provide sustained care to frail elderly Canadians. Using national survey data, we examined characteristics of the care networks of 1,104 seniors living with a long-term health problem. Care networks were found to vary considerably in size, relationship composition, gender composition, age composition, and proximity, and these network characteristics were found to help explain variations in the types and amounts of care received. As a result, network characteristics that might place seniors at risk of receiving inadequate care (including small size and higher proportions of non-kin, male, and geographically distant members) were identified. These risk factors appear to be poorly reflected in most existing policy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations110
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207