Global Journal of Health Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 2009, all in one file.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By means of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Ageline (AARP) database searches, the author presents a review of the literature addressing residential care aides-their roles, working environments, work satisfaction, and factors affecting recruitment and retention.Using the method of qualitative metasummary, eight broad themes emerged: job dissatisfaction, low wages, attrition and retention difficulties, threats to personal safety, the experience of hierarchy (devaluation and domination), the importance of relationships and collegial support, excessive workloads and inadequate training.Heavy reliance on American research is a limitation, but there appears to be general agreement across eight countries that residential care aide work can be arduous, demanding and demoralizing.At the same time, given the constraints that most aides work under, many aides care greatly about their clients and are very concerned about the quality of care that they are able to provide.Their voices, however, remain relatively overlooked or ignored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.734 | 0.367 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".