Study on the Welfare Portability of Cross-Border Eldercare Services in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area
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
The “Outline of the Development Planning for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area” issued by the State Council of China in 2019 points out cooperation between Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland in eldercare services should be promoted and cross-border eldercare services should become more convenient. Practice of promoting cross-border pension in EU, Canada and USA shows welfare portability is vital for cross-border pension decision-making. Therefore, this paper focuses on the welfare portability of existing policies on cross-border eldercare services employed by Hong Kong and Macao, and analyzes the reasons for the poor effect of cross-border pension policies. Results show the welfare non-portability of cross-border eldercare is the primary obstacle. Thus, the governments of Hong Kong, Macao and the Mainland should complementarily improve the cooperative governance mechanism, interest coordination mechanism and cooperative supervision mechanism of cross-border eldercare services, create a “network model” of regional eldercare resources and information sharing, support cross-border cooperation among social organizations and strengthen the standardized management of the eldercare service industry to promote the welfare portability.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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