Services Provided by Informal and Formal Caregivers to Seniors in Residential Continuing Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Au chapitre des nouvelles approches pour le soin des aînés fragiles en établissements figure l'adoption de modèles de soins sociaux qui se traduit par l'embauche de travailleurs polyvalents et la participation des membres de la famille à la prestation des soins. On a utilisé les méthodes de rappel et d'emplois du temps pour évaluer les types de tâches et la quantité de services fournis par la famille et le personnel soignant dans trois modèles de soins. Les résultats indiquent que les membres de la famille accordent environ 30 pour cent des soins sur place. Ils consacrent la plupart de leurs efforts au bien-être des patients alors que le personnel se charge plutôt des travaux domestiques. Les modèles de soins diffèrent entre les milieux familiaux pour adultes, les logements avec assistance et ceux où il faut donner des soins reliés à la démence. La durabilité des modèles dépend de la saffisance du personnel et des attentes raisonnables à l'égard des ressources familiales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".