MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780389219 · doi:10.1017/s0714980817000551

Feasibility of Compliant Flooring in Long-Term Care: Results from a Stakeholder Symposium

2017· article· fr· W2780389219 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantelle C. Lachance, Dawn C. Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAGE-WELL
KeywordsStakeholderLong-term careBusinessHealth careQuality (philosophy)MedicineNursingOperations managementEngineeringPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Le revêtement de sol compliant vise à prévenir les blessures causées par les chutes chez les personnes âgées à risque en soins de longue durée, mais l’utilisation de ce type de revêtement dans ces milieux est encore limitée. Nous avons organisé un symposium d’une journée réunissant les parties prenantes afin d’identifier les avantages et les désavantages de l’installation d’un revêtement de sol compliant en soins de longue durée, ainsi que les questions de recherche future les plus pressantes selon les perspectives des parties prenantes clés. Vingt-trois parties prenantes du domaine de la santé, de l’industrie et de la recherche ont assisté au symposium. Les participants considéraient que les avantages les plus importants de ce revêtement étaient la réduction des blessures pour les résidents qui ont chuté auparavant, les avantages potentiels pour le personnel soignant, et la possibilité d’amélioration de la qualité de vie des résidents. Les désavantages perçus comprenaient des considérations financières, le manque de résultats de recherche concernant ce revêtement et les défis associés à l’installation. Les participants ont indiqué que davantage de recherches étaient nécessaires pour montrer le rapport coût-efficacité et l’efficacité clinique du revêtement de sol compliant. Les parties prenantes ont ainsi perçu que ce revêtement procurait une valeur ajoutée en soins de longue durée, mais ont aussi mis en évidence certaines barrières informationnelles et financières significatives liées à son adoption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207