MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206289148 · doi:10.46692/9781847425737.010

Social alarms: international comparisons

2022· other· en· W4206289148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current position Social alarms, as documented in Chapters Five to Nine, are now established in most, if not all, countries of the Western world. They are particularly well established in Northern Europe including the Scandinavian countries, and also in North America, Israel, Japan and Australia. They are also increasingly evident in a number of less developed countries such as those within former Eastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia. The evidence for this wider distribution of social alarms is limited in the sense that there are, as emphasised in Chapter Three, few published articles and reports emanating from many of the countries in question. The main manufacturers meanwhile have been understandably guarded about where they have marketed their wares lest they signal commercial opportunities to others. Despite such provisos, the information presented in this book makes it possible to list both the countries where social alarms are well established and those where some social alarm services are evident but the markets remain poorly developed. Social alarms are well established in many of the former in the sense that they are underpinned by public sector subsidies and sometimes legislation that encourages or requires such provision. Alternatively there are commercial markets within which services can actively compete for the custom of older people and/or agencies that provide support services for their benefit. A number of smaller countries can also be included where the markets may be limited in size but where social alarms are used by several thousand older people. Table 10.1 provides those listings of countries with established or developing markets. Themes and issues Making comparisons between the contrasting countries with social alarms is difficult. The paucity of specific information regarding them has been noted. And even when some information is available it may only be passing mention. Few central or regional government departments or agencies have specifically addressed the issue of social alarm services and their role. Accolades must go, therefore, to the Victoria State government in Australia in their review of the VICPACS service discussed in Chapter Nine (Department of Human Services, 1998) and, for earlier studies, to Scottish Homes (Duncan and Thwaites, 1987), the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (1987) and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (MacLaren Plansearch, 1988).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.003

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 head0.413
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.091 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207