MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2127922638 · doi:10.3138/cja.27.2.191

Des services à domicile culturellement sensibles : perspective des intervenants et des proches-aidantes originaires d’Haïti en tant que cas traceur

2008· article· en· W2127922638 on OpenAlexaffabout
Francine Ducharme, Mario Paquet, Bilkis Vissandjée, Normand Carpentier, Louise Lévesque, Denise Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationContext (archaeology)Focus groupService providerSociologyPerspective (graphical)Public relationsConsistency (knowledge bases)Service (business)BusinessPolitical scienceSocial scienceGeographyMarketingAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the care provided by families occurs in an increasingly multiethnic context. Against this backdrop, the present qualitative study aims to explore the needs/expectations and solutions not only of (female) natural caregivers of an elderly relative hailing from Haiti (presented in terms of tracking cases) but also of remunerated home care providers - all with a view to developing a culturally sensitive service offering. As such, this study works from a conceptual framework centring on the negotiation of a common area of agreement between the stakeholders involved (i.e., natural caregivers and home care providers). To this end, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted among 15 caregivers and 37 home care providers. The three recurrent themes emerging from the data analysis concern, in context, the needs/expectations and solutions surrounding the experience of service use, barriers to use, and the relationships between natural caregivers and home care providers. The statements of both groups evidenced a consistency of views and have thus provided a basis for developing some recommendations acceptable to all stakeholders from the perspective of making culturally-based adjustments to the service offering.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→