Impact of COVID-19 on Relationship-Centred Residential Dining Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study describes changes in dining practices and provider perspectives on meal-related challenges due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. An online survey was disseminated between July and September 2020 through stakeholder networks and social media with 1,036 respondents. Altered dining practices included residents eating in rooms (54.3%), spacing residents in common areas for meals (69.3%), and disposable dish use (44.9%). The most common mealtime challenges were reduced socializing opportunities at meals (29.3%), inadequate staffing (22.8%), reduced family/volunteer help (16.7%), and assisting residents to eat (10.5%). Many participants (72.2%) felt conflict balancing safety and relationship-centred care. Geographic region, home size, building age, respondent’s job title, pre-pandemic relationship-centred practices, and mealtime satisfaction, and some pandemic-initiated practices were associated with mealtime challenges and feeling conflicted in binary logistic regression analyses. Considering trade-offs between safety and relational aspects of mealtimes during the pandemic is crucial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".