MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311662853 · doi:10.1177/07334648221146260

The Disadvantaged Home Care Personal Support Worker: Differences in Job Characteristics, Unionization, Pensions, Participation, and Wages by Care Sector in Canada

2022· article· en· W4311662853 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Zagrodney, Raisa Deber, Mike Saks, Audrey Laporte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedWageLabour economicsPosition (finance)Demographic economicsDistribution (mathematics)AttractivenessEconomicsSample (material)BusinessEconomic growthPsychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personal Support Worker (PSW) supply is struggling to match the rising demand within many countries, particularly in the home and community (HC) sector. Although care demand projections are often sector-specific, our understanding of sector discrepancies on the PSW labour supply side is limited. This paper compares PSW job characteristics by means, proportions, and tests of significance across HC, nursing and long-term care home (LTC), and hospital sectors utilizing a sample of Canadian PSWs (1996-2010). Compared to LTC and hospital sectors, HC PSWs had significantly lower average wages, labour participation levels, permanent positions, job duration, and unionization rates. Relative wage distribution graphs showed how sector wage discrepancies existed across the wage distribution. These distinctions made the comparatively disadvantaged HC PSW position particularly salient, with important labour supply implications by sector. The relative attractiveness of HC sector jobs will become more critical as the rise in HC demand is projected to continue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207