Determinants of Health in Discharge Planning for Seniors: Asking the Right Questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Les praticiens sont encouragés à envisager un changement de perspective philosophie sur la façon dont les équipes interdisciplinaires interrogent les personnes âgées et leurs soignants au cours du processus de la sortie de l’hôpital. Les équipes engagées dans le planification des congés de l’hôpital peuvent commencer systematiquement à poser des questions qui vont au-delà du mise au point médical traditionnel sur les prescriptions, la réhabilitation et les soins, s’ils sont engagés dans un cadre de la décharge englobant attention aux déterminants sociaux de la santé. Une telle approche pourrait révéler les points forts et aussi pourrait exposer les inégalités sanitaires et sociales que les aînés doivent confronter en arrivant chez eux. Cette information peut ouvrir une porte d’entrée reliant les personnes âgées aux ressources sociales et économiques qui les soutiennes afin qu’elles puissent rester en bonne santé et productives.
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 | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".