MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157186385 · doi:10.29173/psur197

Alberta COVID-19 Response: Critical Considerations for Health Care Worker Single-Site Exclusion Policies and Wage Supplements

2021· article· en· W3157186385 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Darshina Dhunnoo

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingLivelihoodBusinessPandemicHealth careWageOrder (exchange)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineNursingEconomic growthFinanceEconomicsLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: On April 20, 2020, Alberta Minister of Health Tyler Shandro issued a single-site exclusion order and wage supplement for health care aid workers at long term care centres in an effort to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 between and within high-risk populations. Adequate staffing and diligent infection prevention measures in long term care centres are necessary to maintaining a medically secure environment and alleviating the pressures that are being faced by acute and intensive care units in-hospital, which have reached capacity as of December 2020. This paper argues that the April 20th order was an insufficient and inefficiently executed iteration of a policy intended to protect both the lives of residents and livelihoods of employees in long-term care throughout the pandemic. I propose instead that centralized regulation of all health care aid and nursing support staff would have better addressed the financial and health concerns that this policy aimed to target. I will also point out systemic issues in Canadian long-term care provision that have been aggravated by COVID-19, as well as reiterate the need for general infection prevention measures outside of the long-term care setting.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207