MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297774866 · doi:10.3138/cja.27.1.89

“We Only Own the Hours”: Discontinuity of Care in the British Columbia Home Support System

2008· article· fr· W4297774866 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zena Sharman, Arlene Tigar McLaren, Marcy Cohen, Aleck Ostry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Le présent article utilise le concept de continuité des soins pour examiner les effets de la structuration du système de santé sur les travailleurs et le personnel du programme de soutien à domicile de la Colombie-Britannique (C.-B.). Ce programme dessert principalement les personnes âgée fragiles vivant dans la pauvreté, et il permet d'obtenir de l'aide pour des tâches comme le bain, l'habillement, et la toilette, et offre aussi un soutien social et relationnel spécial aux clients isolés. En présentant des données qualitatives tirées de groupes de discussion et d'entrevues avec des personnes assignées au soutien à domicile et des clients de la région métropolitaine de Vancouver, nous indiquons comment la précarisation et l'intensification du travail, dans un contexte d'un niveau accru d'acuité et de complexité des besoins des clients, ont réduit la continuité et la qualité des soins. Le présent article parle de la façon dont la restructuration du secteur du soutien à domicile en Colombie-Britannique a réduit le nombre total de personnes bénéficiant de soins dans le cadre du système, perturbé la continuité des soins, et compromis la qualité.

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)0.010
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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207