MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183516729 · doi:10.1177/2327857921101016

Evaluating and Motivating Activation in Long Term Care: Lessons From a Pilot Study

2021· article· en· W3183516729 on OpenAlex
Jalila Jbilou, A. El Bouazaoui, B. Zhang, J.L. Henry, Louise McDonald, Tracy Hall, Richard Shek‐kwan Chang, Debra L. Barton, Mark Chignell

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MonctonUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Term (time)Long-term careSittingPsychologyRuminatingGerontologyApplied psychologyNursingMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults living in long-term care facilities typically receive insufficient exercise and have long periods of the day when they are not doing anything other than sitting or lying down, watching television, or ruminating (Wilkinson et al., 2017). We developed an intervention called the Experiential Centivizer, which provides residents with opportunities to use a driving simulator, watch world travel videos, and engage in exercise. We assessed the impact of the intervention on residents of a long-term care home in Fredericton, NB, Canada. In this paper, we report on the results observed and highlight the lessons learned from implementing a technological intervention within a long-term care setting. Practical and research recommendations are also discussed to facilitate future intervention implementation in long-term care.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.328 · 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