Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was a pleasure to work with Laurie Gottlieb to produce Volume 33 No. 2 of the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a nursing journal has devoted an entire issue to home care. We hope that readers will share our pleasure in the result! The focus is very timely because, after more than a decade of dramatic restructuring, most health care currently is provided in the homes of Canadians. The articles featured draw on an array of disciplines and perspectives, hence this collection contributes significantly to the growing body of knowledge pertaining to the reconfiguration of health-care systems that has occurred in many industrialized countries. Although the contributors address very different issues associated with the provision of home care, each one highlights actual and/or potential inequities and tensions that have arisen. These inequities clearly revolve around axes of discrimination such as gender, disability, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and geographical location. Anderson poignantly asks us to grapple with the knowledge that increasing numbers of homeless Canadians are literally and metaphorically left out in the cold because they largely are excluded from home-care programs. By way of evaluating a telephone support intervention for family caregivers, Ploeg and her colleagues reveal that loneliness and isolation may characterize home-care experiences. These findings raise the possibility that under the rubric of community integration for citizens with disabilities, a paradoxical but unconscionable pattern of dispersed segregation has been created. Ward-Griffin describes the complex relationships and tensions that develop between nurses and family caregivers who provide care to frail elders, and Angus, by describing the particular predicaments women experience as they recover from heart surgery in their homes, illustrates how meanings of home are deeply gendered. Coyte and McKeever review home-care service utilization and financing in various provinces and conclude that national standards should be developed to increase the likelihood
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".