MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213535343 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2021.26645

Long-Term Care’s Financial Sustainability

2021· article· en· W3213535343 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Don Drummond, Duncan Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term careSustainabilityBusinessTerm (time)PreferenceFinancePublic economicsEconomicsNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A system of facilities and services to support and care for Canada's elderly people is essential and must be sustained, but long-term care (LTC), as we now know it, is not it. It is not sustainable financially either by our governments or its current and future recipients. On the upside, the policy direction should easily be changed given that those recipients' strong preference is to age in place in their own homes and communities, not in institutional care homes.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207