MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206795045 · doi:10.46692/9781847424037.006

Distance, privacy and independence: rural homecare

2008· other· en· W4206795045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanie Sims-Gould, Anne Martin-Matthews

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Internet privacyComputer securityComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Oh, the other thing that's fabulous here, which I didn't even mention, I think, is this homecare thing. Has anybody talked to you about that? They have this through the [agency name], and you can stay in your own home until you’re practically at death's door because they’ll come and get you up in the morning. They get your breakfast. Somebody comes to get your lunch. Somebody comes and gets your supper. Somebody comes to put you to bed. It's wonderful. Of course, you know them all, you know, because they were friends and neighbours. They’re your friends’ kids or something, you know, and it's a wonderful thing.’ (Older woman in rural Canada, receiving home support) Introduction For many older people, ageing in place is enabled by a frequently complex system of support comprised of relatives, paid or formal caregivers, neighbours and friends (Sims-Gould and Martin-Matthews, 2007). The receipt of adequate and appropriate homecare is one component of the formal service sector that contributes to the likelihood of older rural residents remaining in their homes and communities. Homecare is an expanding sector of healthcare delivery in many countries around the world (Hall and Coyte, 2001; McClimont and Grove, 2004; Broese van Groenou et al, 2006). Overall population ageing, combined with a strong desire to ‘age in place’, creates an increased likelihood that many older people will use homecare. The increased likelihood for use of homecare also exists within many rural and remote areas around the world, particularly in the absence of local hospitals or other acute/post-acute care options. This chapter examines the experiences of home support workers and older clients in the delivery and receipt of home support services in rural Canada. The receipt of appropriate home support services enables many older people to remain in their homes and communities as they grow older. In rural areas, home support services are particularly important in that they can often prevent or delay the relocation of an older person to an urban centre where hospitals, acute and post-acute care are more readily available. While there is a growing body of knowledge on homecare, few studies have examined home support in the rural context (Williams and Cutchin, 2002; Canadian Homecare Association, 2006).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving→French-language works237,207→