MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083111069 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.3.95

Care that ran smoothly, was responsive to clients’ needs, and required no special effort for clients to maintain was important for continuity in home care

2004· letter· en· W2083111069 on OpenAlexaffabout
Della Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeb of scienceFamily medicineNursingPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Woodward CA, Abelson J, Tedford S, et al . What is important to continuity in home care? Perspectives of key stakeholders. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:177–92.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are key stakeholders’ (clients, caregivers, case managers, and home care workers) perspectives of continuity in home care? Qualitative study. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 13 case managers, 19 home service providers, 25 clients, 5 caregivers, and 3 physicians who had patients receiving home care. All participants were linked to a community care access centre. Data were collected mainly by indepth telephone interviews, although some interviews were done face to face. Interviews lasted 45–90 minutes. All but 3 interviews were tape recorded and transcribed (interviews not tape recorded were recorded by hand written notes and dictation after the interviews). An iterative process of data collection and analysis was used to confirm and reconfirm emerging themes. 4 researchers read text associated with various codes and triangulated their interpretations to develop higher level … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSocial%2Bscience%2B%2526%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DSoc%2BSci%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DWoodward%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D58%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D177%26rft.epage%253D192%26rft.atitle%253DWhat%2Bis%2Bimportant%2Bto%2Bcontinuity%2Bin%2Bhome%2Bcare%253F.%2BPerspectives%2Bof%2Bkey%2Bstakeholders.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0277-9536%252803%252900161-8%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14572930%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00161-8&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14572930&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F95.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000187742900014&link_type=ISI

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)0.008
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207