MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3159268491 · doi:10.1017/s0714980820000422

Improving Primary Health Care for Residents Living in Assisted Living: Evidence for Practice and Policy

2021· article· en· W3159268491 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Cann, Rose McCloskey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNursingTransformational leadershipScope (computer science)Primary careMedicineEconomic growthBusinessPolitical scienceFamily medicinePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fact that there is a large and growing number of older Canadians has generated a sense of urgency in improving seniors' access to health and long-term care services. Many provincial health care systems have engaged in a range of reforms to help older adults remain healthy and independent. Although many transformational changes have taken place across Canada to improve primary care, variations exist across provinces and territories in terms of older adults' access to primary health care. Opportunities exist for provinces to learn from successful reforms implemented in other Canadian jurisdictions. Residents of assisted living (AL) facilities are an ideal group to whom to target primary health care reforms, given the important role these facilities play in the care continuum and the complex needs of their residents. Allowing practitioners to practice to their full scope and assume greater responsibility within the health care system is a strategy adopted in some jurisdictions with success. This article reports on reforms that have been made to expand the scopes of practice of nurse practitioners and paramedics in some provinces, but also have the potential to improve access to primary health care for those living in AL across the entire country, including those living in smaller provinces such as New Brunswick.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→