MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899950804 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.011

THE MVP IN AN EARLY MOBILIZATION INITIATIVE: THE MOBILITY VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

2018· article· en· W2899950804 on OpenAlexaff
B A Liu, J.E. Denomme, D. Brown, B. O’Leary, Jonguk Lee, Beth Singleton

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobilizationVolunteerAccountabilityStakeholderUnit (ring theory)Public relationsIntervention (counseling)Medical educationBusinessPsychologyNursingPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a corporate senior friendly strategy, the mobilization of vulnerable elders (MOVE) initiative at Sunnybrook was unique in its use of volunteers as an adjunct intervention supporting the improvement strategy. With training adapted from the Hospital Elder Life Program, volunteers supported the goal of mobilization 3 times daily. Since 2011 over 300 volunteers have been trained in the mobility volunteer program (MVP) in a large urban academic centre. We have evaluated volunteer and stakeholder feedback on the program structure and implementation. Lessons learned include the value of the volunteer role as a lever for sustainability of improvement in staff performance related to mobilization; the need to promote unit ownership and accountability; the evolution of staff expectations and factors influencing acceptance of the role. The MVP continues to flourish and the role has been expanded beyond mobilization.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207