MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155697039 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n12p142

Social Welfare Needs and Policies for Elderly People in Thailand: A Case Study in Pitsanulok Community

2014· article· en· W2155697039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Somkit Khamngae, Sombut Boonleaing, Natthavut Bungchan, Thongphon Promsaka Na Sakolnakorn

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareGovernment (linguistics)Social securitySocial policySocial WelfarePublic policyEconomic growthPaymentFocus groupSocial workTransfer paymentBusinessPublic relationsPublic administrationPolitical scienceEconomicsMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study are to study the level of satisfaction of older people with social welfare policy, to study the problems of social welfare policy, and to study public policy guidelines for social welfare in a community in Pitsanulok province. We did quantitative and qualitative methods for 3,701 questionnaires, interviews of 29 participants and a focus group of 15 experts to discuss policy guidelines. From the study, we found that older people were satisfied with social welfare policy at a moderate level such as social security, knowledge and education. However, the problems of social welfare policy such as the monthly payment assistance is not enough in the current economy, government’s lack of budget, and not allowing government agencies to take care of older people, so local government should create a department for service and support older people and also train government officers to have more knowledge about how to take care of older people. In addition, the government should train more healthy volunteers in communities to take care of and help to transfer older people to hospitals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207