Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this project was to develop a wellness guide for staff to implement in long-term care (LTC), to increase participation of meaningful activities and well-being for male residents of all abilities, both physically and psychosocially. Methodology: A literature review was conducted to understand the need for activities of male residents in LTC. Sources included: online databases, textbooks, and government websites. The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOPE) was selected to direct the development of the program guide. The CMOP-E promotes engagement in occupations and enablement of occupational performance, both of which are important for male residents in LTC. Results: Throughout the literature review, the importance of activities and the need to match interest preferences of male residents in LTC was emphasized. Based on demographics, the majority of residents are typically female. Too often activities are geared toward the interests of females rather than males, which indicated the need for a program guide. The guide for Wellness Programming for Men in Long-Term Care was designed to address the specific needs of males in LTC. The program guide provides activities, modifications and enablement skill recommendations for LTC staff to use in meeting the needs of male residents through meaningful activities. Conclusions: Following older men’s transition into LTC, it is important for male residents to engage in meaningful activities to assist with changes, both physically and psychosocially. By implementing the program guide, LTC staff can encourage male residents to engage in occupations that are meaningful and increase well-being, regardless of one’s abilities.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".