Differences in adult day services center participant characteristics by center ownership: United States, 2012.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEY FINDINGS: Data from the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers. In 2012, more than one-third of participants in adult day services centers were younger than 65. A higher percentage of participants in nonprofit centers than in for-profit centers were younger than 65. About one-half of participants in adult day services centers were non-Hispanic white persons. A higher percentage of participants in for-profit centers than in nonprofit centers were Hispanic or were non-Hispanic and of a race other than black or white. Almost one-third of adult day services center participants had Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, and about one-quarter had a developmental disability. A lower percentage of participants in for-profit than in nonprofit centers had Alzheimer's disease or other dementias or a developmental disability. The 4,800 adult day services centers nationwide provide a variety of services to their 273,200 participants, the majority of whom are older adults and women (1). The number of for-profit adult day services centers has grown in recent years (2). The 1,900 for-profit centers, representing 40% of centers nationally, served nearly one-half (47%) of center participants in 2012 (3). Using data from the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers, this report presents selected characteristics of adult day services center participants in 2012 and compares the characteristics of participants in for-profit centers with those in nonprofit centers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".