Bringing Care Governance to Ontario's Retirement Homes Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, the Ontario government introduced Bill 21, the Retirement Homes Act, 2010 (the Act), which required the licensing of retirement homes (RHs), residents' rights, care and safety standards, inspections, compliance and a newly formed Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (Authority).The Act and its regulations drew heavily from the content of legislation pertaining to long-term care homes (LTC homes), recognizing that many RHs provided high acuity care.However, the Authority was constituted with a multi-sectoral board, which was arm's length from government.The stated goal of the Act was to ensure the dignity, respect, safety and privacy of residents, though the government also recognized the importance of preserving autonomy and choice for the predominantly private, for-profit operators and their residents.A consultation process spurred considerable debate over the content of the proposed legislation as well as the authority that would oversee it.The unwillingness of the government to fund care services in RHs (unlike LTC homes) influenced its policy decision to pass the Act in a form that gave greater autonomy to the industry to oversee its regulation through a multi-sectoral Authority, rather than one directed by government.A formal five-year review showed the reform to be well received by the public and key stakeholders, and an Effectiveness Survey for Stakeholders conducted by a third party indicated positive results, pointing to the success of both regulatory content and oversight.Bringing Care Governance to Ontario's Retirement Homes Sector Roblin et al. Key Messages• The rapid aging of Ontario's population spurred growth in the retirement home (RH) sector and increased public awareness of the high acuity nature of care services for RH residents.This, in turn, led to calls for comprehensive regulation and oversight of the sector.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".