MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095155688 · doi:10.1177/0898264308328926

Assisted Living Pilot Program

2009· article· en· W2095155688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marylou Guihan, Mark D. Thomas, Floss J. Mambourg, Li Wang, Michael K. Chapko, Susan C. Hedrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssisted livingAssisted Living FacilityMedicaidPilot programMedicineVeterans AffairsLong-term careQuarter (Canadian coin)Residential careBusinessHealth careNursingMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funded assisted living (AL), adult family home (AFH), and residential care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP). This article describes the background and methods of the ALPP evaluation and the characteristics and experiences of the facilities. Method. Facility data were collected from the contracting/inspection process and a survey of ALPP facilities and those contacted but not participating in ALPP. Results. Data on 131 participating facilities are presented: 41 AFHs, 47 assisted living facilities (ALFs), and 43 residential care facilities (RCFs). The average facility had 33 beds (about one quarter Medicaid beds), for-profit ownership, and private rooms for ALPP residents, and about half had private baths. About two thirds of ALPP AFH providers spoke a primary language other than English. Discussion. Findings indicate that a wide range of community facilities were willing to provide care to residents with heterogeneous needs on VA funding.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.364 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207