Stephen Weber Long. Caring for People with Challenging Behaviors: Essential Skills and Successful Strategies in Long-Term Care. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press, 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Caring for People with Challenging Behaviors: Essential Skills and Successful Strategies in Long-Term Carerenferme de l'information éminemment utile pour quiconque dispense des soins à des personnes présentant des comportements difficiles. Quoique les prestataires de soins puissent être aux prises avec de telles personnes dans d'autres milieux de soins, le DrLong précise que c'est le cas de 80 pour cent des résidents en établissement de soins de longue durée, et que ces comportements sont pour beaucoup le principal motif d'admission dans l'établissement. L'ouvrage se révèle un guide précieux dans le relevé des causes internes ou externes des comportements problématiques et dans la détermination des moyens de prévenir ou de prendre en charge ces comportements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".