MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111460255 · doi:10.1177/089826430201400204

Adult Day Care for the Frail Elderly

2002· article· en· W2111460255 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendancePsychological interventionAnxietyMedicineGerontologyCaregiver burdenDepression (economics)Day carePsychologyNursingPsychiatryDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes and satisfaction among frail elderly day care clients and their informal caregivers and the impact of adult day care on the cost of health services. METHODS: One-hundred eight elderly participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group (immediate admission to an adult day care center) and 104 participants to the control group (3 months on a waiting list). RESULTS: Participants' and caregivers' subjective perceptions of the day center's effects were positive. However, using standard research instruments, there was no evidence of an effect of day center attendance on the client's anxiety, depression, or functional status; on caregiver burden; or on the cost of health services. DISCUSSION: It is difficult to demonstrate objectively the benefits of programs and interventions that are perceived by clients, caregivers, and staff to have positive effects. In future studies, maintenance of high levels of participation should be incorporated as an explicit program goal.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.344 · 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