Supporting Relationships Between Family and Staff in Continuing Care Settings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Canadian study, a participatory action research approach was used to examine the relationships between families of residents of traditional continuing care facilities and the health care team. The objectives were to (a) explore the formation and maintenance of family-staff relationships, with attention paid to the relational elements of engagement and mutual respect; (b) explore family and staff perspectives of environmental supports and constraints; and (c) identify practical ways to support and enhance these relationships. Results indicate that the resource-constrained context of continuing care has directly impacted family and staff relationships. The nature of these relationships are discussed using the themes of "Everybody Knows Your Name," "Loss and Laundry," "It's the Little Things That Count," and "The Chasm of Us Versus Them." Families' and staff's ideas of behaviors that support or undermine relationships are identified, as are concrete suggestions for improving family- staff relationships in traditional continuing care settings in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it