MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964488738 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6434867.v1

An Organizational Assessment of 34 Home Delivered Meals Programs that Engaged and Assisted Homebound Individuals With Obtaining the COVID-19 Vaccine During the Pandemic

2023· other· en· W6964488738 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPublic healthGeneral partnershipCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Needs assessmentBest practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaccinating homebound individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic presented several challenges, including time and cost of engaging this group. In Los Angeles County, the departments of Public Health and Aging and Disabilities turned to home delivered meals programs (HDMs) for help with this public health priority. A mixed-method organizational assessment of 34 HDMs was conducted during March–April 2022 to describe these efforts. Most HDMs were nonprofit (67.6%) and had <25 staff (58.8%). Overall, they served a large catchment area before and during COVID-19, providing services to an estimated total of 24,995 clients/week and delivering 19,511 meals/day. A majority (82.4%) reported engaging their clients to facilitate COVID-19 vaccinations. As of early 2022, <6% of these HDMs’ homebound clients were unvaccinated. These programs’ efforts to assist older individuals who were homebound during the pandemic represent a potentially underutilized model of public-nonprofit/not-for-profit partnership for improving vaccine delivery and uptake in this hard-to-reach population.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207