MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285032258 · doi:10.1017/s0714980822000137

Re-braiding the Strands of Life through Community Rehabilitation, Home Care, and Informal Support: A Longitudinal Collective Case Study

2022· article· en· W4285032258 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathleen Zawaly, Jacquie Ripat, Lorna Guse, Alan Katz, Jeanette Edwards, Kathryn M. Sibley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsRehabilitationThematic analysisPsychologyActivities of daily livingCommunity-based rehabilitationGerontologyQualitative researchSociologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited research exists on the experiences of older adults participating in community rehabilitation. Our longitudinal, collective case study explored older adults' experiences while they engaged in community rehabilitation and home care services, as well as family caregivers' concurrent experiences. Drawing on interpretive description, we inductively analysed interview data gathered at three points over 3-6 months from six family dyads. Questions focused on activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living and other meaningful activities affected by changes in the older adult's health. From our thematic analysis, three themes emerged: (a) Centring community rehabilitation and home care services around the older adult and family; (b) Understanding the intricate interface of formal and informal supports; and (c) Supporting the meaningful aspects of life. Our findings suggest a metaphor of re-braiding, a reconfiguration of activities that requires increased integration of formal and informal supports within home care and community rehabilitation.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→