Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize the effectiveness of home care in improving or maintaining the health of Canadians, home-care programs must have clear goals, be founded firmly on evidence of effectiveness, form part of an integrated healthcare system and be grounded in constitutional and political reality. Goals should be client-centred and distinguish between curative, supportive and preventive care. Curative and supportive home care can be cost-effective if substitution for more costly institutional services can be achieved, but the cost-effectiveness of preventive home care and comprehensive care for the elderly has not been clearly demonstrated. Integrated delivery systems are a prerequisite for effective substitution of care at home for institutional care. Federal financing dedicated to a home-care program is unnecessary and is a political and constitutional non-starter. Federal leadership for a national home-care approach would be welcome. Canada Health Act protection for access to medically necessary home care is attractive, but such protection for pharmaceuticals is a higher need. Federal support for research and demonstration of new models of care is valuable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".