Comparative Costs of Home Care and Residential Care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper reports on Canadian research that examined the cost effectiveness of home care for seniors as a substitute for long-term institutional services. DESIGN AND METHODS: Two Canadian cities were included in the research: Victoria, British Columbia, and Winnipeg, Manitoba. The research computes the costs of formal care and informal care in both settings and ensures comparable groups of clients in both settings by comparing individuals at the same level of care. RESULTS: The results reveal that costs were significantly lower for community clients than for facility clients, regardless of whether costs only to the government were taken into account or whether both formal and informal costs were taken into account. When informal caregiver time is valued at either minimum wage or replacement wage, there was a substantial jump in the average annual costs for both community and facility clients relative to when informal caregiver time was valued at zero. IMPLICATIONS: Nevertheless, the results reveal that home care is significantly less costly than residential care even when informal caregiver time is valued at replacement wage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it