ISQUA16-2418FAMILY AND CAREGIVERS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF HOME CARE SAFETY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation will feature national evidence collected over the past 10 years from seniors receiving homecare services in 7 Canadian provinces. This program of research showcases the multiple meanings and influences on the broadened conceptualization of homecare safety including emotional, social, and functional safety from the perspectives of clients, family/caregivers, and providers. Caregivers are family members and friends who enable and support homecare clients to receive care at home. In 2012, 28% of Canadians 15 years of age or older, spent a median of 4 hours a week providing help or care to a relative or friend with a chronic health problem. Caregivers are increasingly relied upon by the health system to provide 70–75% of the care required at home, with little or no attention paid to the caregivers’ health, safety, concerns, or preoccupations. This research represents the product of multiple complementary and interconnected studies led by an interdisciplinary pan-Canadian team of knowledge users and researchers. Using a mixed method design, client and caregiver interviews were followed by photo “walkabouts” where participants visually guided the interviewer through their daily experience of managing at home. The concerns or strategies that were pointed out were captured on digital camera. Focus groups were conducted with regulated professionals and non-regulated home support workers about safety in home care.
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.004 |
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".