N. Keating, J. Fast, J. Frederick, K. Cranswick, and C. Perrier Eldercare in Canada: Context, Content and Consequences. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Ministry of Industry, 1999. Catalogue no. 89-570-XPE.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Dans leur livre, Eldercare in Canada: Context, content and consequences, Keating et al. concluent que les Canadiens accordent une quantité importante de soins à leurs aîné(e)s. Bien qu'ils soient parfois structurés et subventionnés, les soins sont plutôt officieux et non subventionnés. Le livre décrit les caractéristiques du soignant et du soigné, le contexte de la prestation des soins ainsi que les coûts sociaux, psychosociaux, physiques et économiques des soins. Il relève les questions de politiques que les auteurs estiment aptes à maintenir la quantité et la qualité des soins actuellement fournis. À titre de document d'information, le livre est clairement rédigé et présente des tableaux qui contiennent des données de l'Enquête sociale générate de 1996. Il constitue une riche source d'information sur les soins non structurés pour les aîné(e)s canadien(ne)s.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".