MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080464814 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2009.21225

Accountability, Responsiveness and Quality for Clients Model of Home Support: A model for improved home support services to promote aging at home

2009· article· en· W2080464814 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Judy Kelly, Alison Orr

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityQuality (philosophy)BusinessAging in placePsychologyGerontologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the proportion of older adults increases within the Canadian population, healthcare systems across the country are facing increased demands for home-based services, including home care nursing, rehabilitation, case management, adult day programs, respite, meal programs and home support. Home support is one of the core care services required in the community to enable older adults to remain at home as long as possible. In 2006, Vancouver Community introduced a new home support delivery and performance management model: the Accountability, Responsiveness and Quality for Clients Model of Home Support (ARQ Model) (VCH 2006). The main components of the ARQ Model are an expanded use of "cluster care" along with stable monthly funding for high-density buildings and neighbourhoods; the introduction of specific monthly and quarterly quality performance reporting; and the implementation of performance-based funding for home support. This article discusses the setup of the ARQ model, its ongoing evaluation and results achieved thus far.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207