MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399678876 · doi:10.1111/capa.12574

Older Adults' Engagement in Advisory Councils and Committees: The case of Manitoba, Canada

2024· article· en· W4399678876 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Rounce, Laura Funk, Danielle Cherpako

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvisory committeeDemocracyCorporate governancePolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsManagementPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While older adults and family carers have important contributions to make to social and civic life in Canada, meaningful opportunities for engaging in democratic governance are often limited. Using the province of Manitoba as a case study, we ask how relevant advisory councils and committees have been designed and constituted; how have they operated in practice; and what explains their span of influence and effectiveness. Interviews with older adults and family carers show that they want to be involved, that they believe that advisory committees/councils can be effective mechanisms for engagement, and that they think these entities can impact decision‐makers, especially in the health sector.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207