MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unheard voices, unmapped terrain: Care work in long‐term residential care for older people in Canada and Sweden

2011· article· en· W2131289071 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamara Daly, Marta Szebehely

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Welfare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsWork (physics)Residential careWelfare stateCare workWelfareLong-term careGeographySociologyEconomic growthGerontologyNursingPolitical scienceMedicinePoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daly T, Szebehely M. Unheard voices, unmapped terrain: care work in long‐term residential care for older people in Canada and Sweden This article aims to contribute to comparative welfare state research by analysing the everyday work life of long‐term care facility workers in Canada and Sweden. The study's empirical base was a survey of fixed and open‐ended questions. The article presents results from a subset of respondents (care aides and assistant nurses) working in facilities in three Canadian provinces ( n = 557) and across Sweden ( n = 292). The workers' experiences were linked to the broader economic and organisational contexts of residential care in the two jurisdictions. We found a high degree of country‐specific differentiation of work organisation: Canada follows a model of highly differentiated task‐oriented work, whereas Sweden represents an integrated relational care work model. Reflecting differences in the vertical division of labour, the Canadian care aides had more demanding working conditions than their Swedish colleagues. The consequences of these models for care workers, for older people and for their families are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations129
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social WelfareSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207