MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791396906 · doi:10.1017/s0714980817000563

Going it Alone: A Scoping Review of Unbefriended Older Adults

2018· review· fr· W2791396906 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephanie Chamberlain, Sol Baik, Carole A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2018
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of AlbertaAlzheimer Society
KeywordsLegal guardianGuardianGerontologyScope (computer science)PsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Les personnes âgées dont la capacité de prise de décision est réduite et qui n’ont pas de soutien familial ou d’amis pour les aider à compenser ces déficits sont dites « solitaires » et nécessitent un tuteur public. Le but de cette étude était de recenser les publications avec comités de pairs et la littérature grise afin d’examiner la portée des travaux de recherches réalisés jusqu’à ce jour concernant les personnes âgées solitaires au Canada et aux États-Unis. Nous n’avons recensé que peu d’études sur ce sujet. Aucune étude ou rapport canadien n’a été trouvé. Les personnes âgées solitaires étaient plus avancées en âge, sans enfants ou avec peu d’enfants, et leurs troubles cognitifs étaient plus sévères, comparativement aux personnes âgées non solitaires. Ces résultats démontrent une rareté des études sur les personnes âgées solitaires. Il est urgent que davantage de recherches soient réalisées avec des collectes de données standardisées concernant la tutelle chez les personnes âgées solitaires afin de faciliter la réalisation d’études sur la prévalence de la tutelle publique au Canada.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207