MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100858699 · doi:10.3233/wor-2011-1203

Key issues in human resource planning for home support workers in Canada

2011· review· en· W2100858699 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceGovernment (linguistics)Human resourcesBusinessWork (physics)Public relationsResource (disambiguation)Workforce planningImmigrationWorkforce developmentMarketingEconomic growthPolitical scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This paper is a synthesis of research on recruitment and retention challenges for home support workers (HSWs) in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Home support workers (HSWs) provide needed support with personal care and daily activities to older persons living in the community. METHODS: Literature (peer reviewed, government, and non-government documents) published in the past decade was collected from systematic data base searches between January and September 2009, and yielded over 100 references relevant to home care human resources for older Canadians. RESULTS: Four key human resource issues affecting HSWs were identified: compensation, education and training, quality assurance, and working conditions. To increase the workforce and retain skilled employees, employers can tailor their marketing strategies to specific groups, make improvements in work environment, and learn about what workers value and what attracts them to home support work. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding these HR issues for HSWs will improve recruitment and retention strategies for this workforce by helping agencies to target their limited resources. Given the projected increase in demand for these workers, preparations need to begin now and consider long-term strategies involving multiple policy areas, such as health and social care, employment, education, and immigration.

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.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.444
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