MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206888631 · doi:10.1017/s0714980821000404

(Dis)Connecting Through COVID-19: Experiences of Older Persons in the Context of a Volunteer–Client Relationship

2021· article· en· W3206888631 on OpenAlexafffund
Paxton Bruce, Barbara Pesut, Rowena Dunlop, Gloria Puurveen, Wendy Duggleby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMax Bell Foundation
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social distanceContext (archaeology)DistancingPsychologyVolunteerNegotiationVulnerability (computing)Social isolationQualitative researchPsychological resilienceSocial psychologySociologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and mandated physical distancing requirements significantly impacted volunteer programs for older persons with many long-standing programs either ceasing altogether or pivoting to connecting through virtual technologies. In this study, we collected qualitative interview data from 23 clients and 33 volunteers to investigate their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects on the volunteer-client relationship. Three themes were identified: pandemic emotions, negotiating social interactions, and growing through the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings provide important insights into the experiences of hospice organizations and their volunteers and clients during the COVID 19 pandemic, further highlighting the importance of acknowledging both older persons' vulnerability and their resilience, of building in compassionate community approaches to care, and of finding innovative ways to foster volunteer-client relationships during times when physical visiting is not possible.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207