MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622084540 · doi:10.3138/jcs.50.2.499

Residential Care for Older People: Are There Lessons to Be Learned from Sweden?

2017· article· en· W2622084540 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingEthnographyWork (physics)Public relationsNursingPoliticsHealth careResidential careQualitative researchSociologyBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a qualitative rapid ethnography study, this article analyzes everyday care work in nursing homes in Ontario and Sweden. The comparison is linked to the broader socio-political and organizational contexts in the two jurisdictions. Policy documents in both locations stress that care services should be of high quality and individually adapted. The organizational preconditions to provide such care were better in the Swedish care homes because of higher staffing ratios, fewer routines, and more time for collegial support. The workers therefore had more opportunities to adapt their efforts to meet residents’ different and changing needs. In both jurisdictions, however, the care workers’ own needs were often disregarded, and their health and well-being were at risk.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.280 · 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