MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323474712 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012885

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.

2001· article· fr· W2323474712 on OpenAlex
Larry W. Chambers

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryHumanitiesContext (archaeology)Political scienceArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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