MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156131693 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012125

Services Provided by Informal and Formal Caregivers to Seniors in Residential Continuing Care

2001· article· fr· W2156131693 on OpenAlex
Norah Keating, Janet Fast, Donna Dosman, Jacquie Eales

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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