Older Māori and aged residential care in Aotearoa Ngā kaumātua me te mahi tauwhiro i Aotearoa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report was commissioned by Health Quality & Safety Commission (the Commission) to serve as a think piece, highlighting current knowledge of care for Indigenous people in aged residential care (ARC), present views and experiences of Māori in ARC and discuss issues of relevance with a future focused view. This report presents: 1. Population demographic shifts and Māori access to ARC in Aotearoa; 2. Quality of care for Māori living in ARC; 3. A narrative review of the literature regarding ARC and Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, and the United States; 4. Voices of Māori involved in research or care provision for Māori in ARC; 5. Case studies of programmes developed to support Māori living in ARC. It concludes by identifying knowledge gaps, and areas that are important in the ongoing discussion relating to Māori and ARC, with the intention of being both practical and aspirational. Commitment to te Tiriti o Waitangi requires full information on health outcomes for Māori and inequities for older Māori have been described. Inequities in ARC access and outcomes are largely unstudied and this report summarises available information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".