Home Care Developments in the Canadian Province of Alberta with Regionalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was done to determine if the number of home care clients served annually in a Canadian province increased after regional boards were granted full authority and responsibility for health care services. An increase was expected as regional boards have more opportunity to comprehensively plan and provide cost-effective health care services in accordance with the needs of the local community. An increase was also expected in keeping with a previous home care growth trend. An analysis of 2004/05 data collected on all home care clients in the province of Alberta was undertaken, with the results compared to 2000/01. Client numbers province-wide declined 7%, although this decline was limited to the 7 rural regions (-50%), while client numbers increased 30% in each of the 2 urban regions. This decline in rural home care clients was linked to more readily available hospital beds in rural areas, which seems to have reduced the need or demand for home care in rural regions. Service coverage was also found to vary considerably among clients, but services were most often minimal and short term. Less than 2% of Albertans received publicly-funded home care services in 2004/2005, with coverage averaging 2 hours of basic personal care each week. This study reveals the issue that regional boards make vastly different allocation decisions in the absence of central health service policies or funding directives. The issue of home care service scarcity was also revealed, with research needed now to determine how home care expansion can be made to occur in rural areas, if not all areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".