MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781865805 · doi:10.1177/0733464817750274

Utilization of Formal and Informal Home Care: How Do Older Canadians’ Experiences Vary by Care Arrangements?

2018· article· en· W2781865805 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessAutonomySocial connectednessReceiptGerontologyQualitative researchPsychologyMedicineNursingSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates how the receipt of formal, informal, and/or a combination of both types of care at home relates to older adults’ perceived loneliness, life satisfaction, and day-to-day lives. Quantitative analyses using the Canadian Community Health Survey ( n = 3,928) reveal that older adults who only received formal care reported lower levels of loneliness and higher levels of life satisfaction when compared with respondents who received informal or a blend of home care. Qualitative analyses of persons aged 65+ years receiving formal and informal home care in Ontario ( n = 34) suggest that formal care bolstered care recipients’ autonomy and reduced their sense of being a burden on family. In turn, receiving formal care served to improve these older adults’ social connectedness and well-being. Findings underscore older adults’ symbolic, functional, and emotional attachment to formal care services, as well as the limitations of a reliance on informal support.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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