MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180232775 · doi:10.1017/s0714980821000209

Policy and Practice Note: Policy, Safety, and Regulation with Regard to Ontario Home Care Clients and Personal Support Workers

2021· article· en· W3180232775 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela Hopwood, Ellen MacEachen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceContext (archaeology)Work (physics)NursingHealth careCorporate governancePersonal carePublic relationsBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of COVID-19 and elevated concerns for the health of older Canadians receiving care, this Policy and Practice Note explores the confluence of the current home care policy landscape and the organisation of personal support worker (PSW) work, and highlights the need to consider governance of PSW work generally, and in-home and community care especially. PSWs are currently not professionally regulated, nor is there a central site documenting location, education, or any form of verification of the PSW workforce. Home care PSWs often provide physical care in isolated settings with no in-person supervision. In home and community health care, complaints about PSWs can be scattered among different service providers or client files not linked to or searchable by PSW name. This policy note explores how these factors and the currently unregulated status of PSWs affect home care safety in general as well as in the context of COVID-19, Ontario's decentralised home care system, and efforts towards professional regulation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207