Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteure analyse les soins fournis par des bénévoles d'hôpitaux en utilisant des données d'entrevues, des descriptions de täches et des statistiques concernant les bénévoles de quatre hôpitaux d'Alberta, Canada. Les employés des hôpitaux s'attendent à ce que les bénévoles fournissent des soins instrumentaux et affectifs, mais ils restreignent également leur tàche en imposant des limites aux heures de travail réalisé par les bénévoles ainsi qu'à la somme d'information qu'ils reçoivent sur les patients. Les bénévoles surmontent ces contraintes en entretenant des conversations informelles destinées à augmenter leurs connaissances, tout en étant flexibles par rapport aux heures accordées aux patients, afin de pouvoir s'occuper de leurs besoins émotionnels. L'auteure considère également la répartition des sexes chez les bénévoles et l'influence qu'elle exerce sur leurs attentes. Carework done by hospital volunteers is examined using interview data, task descriptions and volunteer statistics from four hospitals in Alberta, Canada. Hospitals expect volunteers to provide instrumental and affective care but also constrain this work by limiting volunteers' work time and the amount of information they are given about patients. Volunteers overcome these constraints by initiating informal conversation to broaden their knowledge and capitalizing on flexibility in how they spend their time to attend to patients' emotional needs. I also consider how the volunteer workforce is gendered and how this influences expectations of volunteers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".