From Familiar Faces to Family: Staff and Resident Relationships in Long-Term Care
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
OBJECTIVE: Long-term care (LTC) facilities are increasingly intent on creating a "homelike" atmosphere for residents. Although residential staff are integral to the construction of a home within LTC settings, their perceptions have been relatively absent from the literature. METHOD: Thirty-two LTC staff participants were interviewed about their experiences and perceptions of the physical environment and conceptualizations of home, and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: An overarching category-interpersonal relationships-emerged from our analyses emphasizing the importance of relationships in creating a homelike environment within institutional settings. Sub-themes that inform our understanding include the following: (a) Staff members' perceptions of home; (b) "Their second home": Adjustment to and familiarity in LTC; and (c) "We become family": Relationality makes a home. DISCUSSION: The study provides evidence to inform current policies and practices in LTC. Specifically, enough time and space should be given to residents and staff to create and maintain personal relationships to make residential care homelike.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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