Attracting and retaining personal care assistants into the Western Australia (WA) residential aged care sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Australian population is ageing, with around one quarter being 60 years and older, and the proportion is expected to grow in the future. These trends have led to government projections for the number of personal care assistants (PCAs) needed to meet the demands of the ageing population, estimated to be more than double the current workforce by 2050. Consequently, the challenges associated with attracting and retaining PCAs in the aged care sector need to be urgently addressed. This qualitative study is based on a large and distributed residential aged care organisation located in Western Australia. Its focus is on the employment conditions of PCAs, their satisfiers and dissatisfiers, and the human resource management practices which might assist the organisation and its sector to better address PCA concerns, leading to more effective PCA attraction, selection and retention. A number of strategies have been proposed that are intended to help advance policy and debate, including attention to various HRM practices and factors relating to job quality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".