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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".