MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009621609

Examining Policy Objectives and Implementation in the Home Care Program in Winnipeg, Manitoba: An Autoethnographic Account from a Home Support Worker.

2022· dissertation· en· W7009621609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Philosophy and Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateLong-term careProgram evaluationFocus groupService (business)Government (linguistics)Work (physics)Health care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine the home care program in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the methods employed by agencies in the implementation of the policy, and its impact on beneficiaries of the program. The mandate of the home care program is twofold: 1) to provide services to persons assessed as having inadequate informal resources to return home from hospital or to remain in the community, and 2) to assess and place individuals in long-term care facilities if and when home care services cannot maintain them safely and/or economically at home and to provide them with home care services until they are placed (Roos et al., 2001). Home care can mean different things to different people. Home care is a general term used to reflect a wide range of social, medical, and non-medical support services that are conducted for purposes of enabling compromised individuals to live safely and independently in their communities (Auditor General of Manitoba, 2015). I choose this topic because, having worked for more than four years as a home support worker with multiple agencies in Winnipeg, my goal in this project is to connect my experience and give an accurate and interesting account of the Home Care Policy and how it is implemented on the ground. I focus on the practices, procedures, and methods employed by the various home care agencies in Winnipeg in implementing the policy (the home care). I also examine other home care modules and point out some practices and procedures elsewhere that can be incorporated into the home care program in Manitoba to make it even better. As a support worker, I look at provisions in the policy that are properly followed and those that are not and how this impacts the beneficiaries of the program. By using an autoethnographic approach and reflecting on my own experience and observations, this study provides first-hand information on the home care culture in Manitoba, its impact on the beneficiaries of the program, and suggestions of possible ways of improving upon the program.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicHistorical Philosophy and ScienceFrench-language works237,207