MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111079324 · doi:10.1177/0898264311402687

Home Care Clients in the Last Year of Life

2011· article· en· W2111079324 on OpenAlexafffund
Donna Goodridge, Alan N. Buckley, Josh Marko, Megan Steeves, Hollie Turner, Steve Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReceiptPalliative careMedicineMarital statusEnd-of-life careLogistic regressionDementiaGerontologyNursingFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPopulationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare demographic, social, medical, and health care characteristics of home care clients in the last year of life by quintile of deprivation and examine associations between material deprivation and service characteristics. METHOD: This retrospective study used administrative data for 700 clients who died while receiving home care services. Outcome measures were the receipt of supportive or palliative home care. Associations were assessed using multiple logistic regression. RESULT: Material deprivation was not associated with either the hours of home care received or the receipt of supportive home care services. Clients with dementia or stroke, those were older than 80 years and those who were single were less likely to receive palliative care services than other groups. DISCUSSION: Inequalities in allocation of home care services based on age, diagnosis, and marital status, but not material deprivation, suggest the need to carefully match service with need at the end of life.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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