MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404093531 · doi:10.1017/s0714980816000192

Staffing in Ontario’s Long-Term Care Homes: Differences by Profit Status and Chain Ownership

2016· article· fr· W2404093531 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amy T. Hsu, Whitney Berta, Peter C. Coyte, Audrey Laporte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStaffingLong-term careNursing homesBusinessFor profitProfit (economics)Residential careAssisted Living FacilityNursingFinanceMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ L’Ontario compte la plus forte proportion des maisons de soins infirmiers à but lucratif au Canada. Ces maisons de soins infirmiers, connus en Ontario comme maisons de soins de longue durée (SLD), offrent 24 heures de soins de garde et de soins infirmiers aux personnes qui sont incapables de vivre de façon autonome. De plus en plus, ces installations fonctionnent aussi comme membres de chaînes de multi-établissements, mais elles n’ont pas été largement étudiées au Canada. En utilisant des données longitudinales (1996–2011) de l’Enquête sur les établissements de soins résidentiels ( n = 627), notre analyse a révélé des différences perceptibles dans les niveaux du personnel selon le statut de profit et de l’affiliation aux chaînes. Nous avons trouvé que les maisons SLD à but lucratif – en particulier celles appartenant à une chaîne – ont fournies significativement moins d’heures de soins, après l’ajustement des variations de la nécessité des soins pour les résidents. Les résultats de cette étude offrent des nouveaux renseignements sur l’impact de la structure organisationnelle sur les niveaux de personnel dans les foyers de SLD de l’Ontario, et ont des implications pour d’autres juridictions où la présence de plus en plus d’opérateurs privés affiliés à des chaînes a été observée.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207