MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275040684 · doi:10.1177/0733464815602109

Family Involvement in Nursing Homes: Are Family Caregivers Getting What They Want?

2015· article· en· W2275040684 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDementiaFamily caregiversNursing homesCongruence (geometry)PsychologyFamily memberNursingGerontologyMedicineFamily medicineSocial psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of person-centered care for nursing home residents with dementia suggests the need for family caregiver involvement. In this article, we argue that optimal family involvement differs by family caregiver and therefore depends on the degree to which family caregivers consider their own involvement to be important. In this Canadian study, we compare the importance that 135 family caregivers of residents with dementia place on 20 kinds of involvement with the degree to which they perceive opportunities for involvement. Family Involvement Congruence Scores are calculated in three ways: those for whom involvement is important, those for whom involvement is not important, and an overall congruence score. Congruence scores varied by involvement type. These scores show promise for use in future research on family caregiver involvement and as tools for use by facilities as they endeavor to meet family caregiver expectations for involvement.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.302 · 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