An Evaluation Index System of Basic Elderly Care Services Based on the Perspective of Accessibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population aging has become more and more severe in many countries. As a result, the demand for basic elderly care services has risen. The establishment of an evaluation index system for basic elderly care services can provide guidelines for governments to improve the quality of such services. Based on the "5A" theoretical analysis framework of Penchansky and Thomas, this paper introduces the concept of "accessibility" into evaluation. The "accessibility" model of services, through a literature review, field research, and three rounds of expert correspondence, consists of three first-level indicators, including the accessibility of home-based community elderly care services, the accessibility of institutional elderly care services, and the accessibility of administrative services. The evaluation index system of 15 s-level indicators and 70 third-level indicators, using AHP to determine the weight value of each indicator, provides a quantitative basis for the quality evaluation and improvement of basic elderly care services. Based on our quantitative results, policy recommendations are put forward: strengthen the support for the human and financial resources of community home-based elderly care services; improve the affordability of basic elderly care services; increase the types and numbers of institutional elderly care service projects; improve the availability and adaptability of institutional elderly care services; improve the accessibility of administrative services so that elderly care service institutions and elderly care administrative agencies can establish an effective communication and feedback mechanism.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".