Older people and their families’ perceptions about their experiences with interprofessional teams
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To examine older people and their families' perceptions about their experiences with interprofessional teams. Design: Naturalistic inquiry using qualitative descriptive methods to provide a comprehensive summary of older people and their families' experiences with interprofessional teams. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 22 people from 11 families. The families had experiences with teams in a variety of settings, such as community, residential care and hospital. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. NiVivo was used to record preliminary codes. Analysis included comparing and contrasting families' experiences. Results: Older people and their families wanted communication about what was going on, regardless of whether the news was good, bad or unknown. They also wanted care that took the concerns of the older person into consideration. Communication was a necessary ingredient to ensuring that the older person's unique concerns were known to the interprofessional team. These percepectives were discussed in the themes of communication and patient-centred care.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it