“Where it’s okay if we die”: Exploring Older Canadians’ Perspective on Long-Term Care Through Found Poetry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thought of living in a nursing home may be disheartening as long-term care establishments have been poorly perceived for decades. The government oversight for quality of care in long-term care homes (LTCH) has resulted in persistent shortcomings when it comes to residents' well-being and health. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic both exacerbated and unveiled long-standing issues regarding the treatment of older adults. Public perceptions about quality of care provided in LTCH declined during the pandemic. With magnification focused on organizational issues in LTCH, future care receivers expressed firm reluctance to consider residence in such facilities. Understanding of older adults' perspectives on LTCH is essential for tailoring care practices and policies. In this study we conducted 2 rounds of interviews with community-dwelling older adults aged 60 or over to better understand their perceptions of LTCH. The narrative data were analyzed using found poetry as an artistic inquiry. Six poems were composed, combining participants' words into one poetic voice-addressing themes such as death, isolation, ongoing health care challenges and private care. Found poetry allowed for salient words to emerge, creating space for nuanced expression of emotions. The combination of multiple voices added to the depth of the poems, which were grounded in the participants' reality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it