MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091384042 · doi:10.1080/01621424.2013.851048

Identifying Psychosocial Variables for Home Care Services and How to Measure Them

2013· article· en· W2091384042 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Delli-Colli, Nicole Dubuc, Réjean Hébert, Catherine Lestage, Marie‐France Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Services Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialWorkloadDelphi methodFocus groupContext (archaeology)PsychologyDelphiMedicineNursingApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Delphi-type expert consultation founded on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method was used to select variables related to older adults and environment characteristics perceived essential in assessing psychosocial needs and that could influence the social work workload in home care services. After two rounds of consultation, the 60 experts reached a consensus on 97 variables out of the 160 considered. A focus group made up of 10 experts identified tools that would allow us to measure the variables in a clinical context. Eighty-three percent of the variables selected could be measured with five instruments identified by the focus group experts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Services QuarterlySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207