MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982500614 · doi:10.1177/2158244019885127

Incapacitated and Alone: Prevalence of Unbefriended Residents in Alberta Long-Term Care Homes

2019· article· en· W2982500614 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsLong-term careNursing homesMedicineCross-sectional studyGerontologyEnvironmental healthPopulationAssisted Living FacilityDemographyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of residents who are incapacitated and have no surrogate decision maker, known as the “unbefriended” in Alberta long-term care (LTC) homes. Using cross-sectional online survey methods, data were collected from 123 staff (i.e., directors of care/nursing, administrators) from Alberta LTC homes. Information was collected on survey respondents’ demographic characteristics, number of unbefriended residents, and on organizational characteristics. The overall prevalence of unbefriended residents in LTC homes was 4.14% in Alberta ( SD = 6.28%, range: 0%-34.6%). Homes with the highest prevalence (nearly 15%) of unbefriended residents had >135 beds and were public not-for-profit and located in large urban centers. Fifty-three percent of unbefriended residents were male. The highest prevalence of unbefriended residents lived in homes located in large urban centers and public not-for-profit operators. Population level and LTC home level prevalence data are needed to assess the scope of unmet needs.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.347 · 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