MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120176684 · doi:10.3138/cja.27.1.089

“We Only Own the Hours”: Discontinuity of Care in the British Columbia Home Support System

2008· article· en· W2120176684 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zena Sharman, Arlene Tigar McLaren, Marcy Cohen, Aleck Ostry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsToiletingRestructuringContext (archaeology)NursingBathingSocial supportWork (physics)Presentation (obstetrics)PovertyPsychologyGerontologyMedicineActivities of daily livingBusinessSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses the concept of continuity of care to examine the implications of health-system restructuring for workers and staff in the BC home support system. Home support primarily serves frail seniors living in poverty and has the potential to provide assistance with tasks like bathing, dressing, and toileting, as well as offer social support and relational care to isolated clients. Through presentation of qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with home support workers and clients in the Greater Vancouver area, we demonstrate how the casualization and intensification of work in a context of increasing client acuity levels has diminished both continuity and quality of care. This article discusses how restructuring in the home support sector in BC has reduced the overall number of persons under care in the system, disrupted continuity of care, and compromised quality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207