Creating open environments in long-term care settings: an examination of influencing factors.
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
Mounting critiques of the total institution (Goffman, 1961) have resulted in the emergence of alternative philosophies and approaches to care, approaches that are focused on providing more open environments within long-term care facilities. Staff responsible for recreation and leisure services can play a key role in the creation of more open environments through the introduction of more and varied community access recreation programs. Yet, our understanding of the extent to which such initiatives are being adopted in long-term care settings is quite limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the provision of community access recreation programs in long-term care settings in Canada and to identify factors that might limit the provision of these programs. The results suggest that the diversity of opportunities for recreation in long-term care facilities may not be achieving a level expected in truly open environments. Resident-focused constraints were the most critical factor influencing the extent to which community access recreation programs were being offered. A number of recommendations are provided to assist recreation professionals in the development of more open facilities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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