Individualized care, the preservation of personhood, and the degree of family orientation in Winnipeg personal care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the implementation of strategies to keep individuals in their home as long as possible, the result is that when they are adrnitted into a personal care home (PCH), most residents have multiple problems and complicated irnpairments.Often, family involvement is critical to ensure their relative's needs are properly assessed and to impart to staff the person behind the illness -her or his personhood.Family involvement is also often required if caregiving staff are going to provide individualized care.However, family involvement is strongly influenced by a facility's degree of family orientation.This research explored whether or not the personhood of residents is pursued ancl supported by caregiving staff and if family involvement is endorsed in Winnipeg personal care homes (PCHs).The importance that family members place on these issues was also explored.Questionnaires completecl by forty-four farnily members whose relatives reside in six PCHs throughout the city revealed that there are clear differences between what takes place in the PCH and what farnilies consider important.Overall, PCHs strive to be family oriented but they continue to fall short of family members' expectations and are often unsuccessful at meeting the family's needs.It is evident that barriers beyond the staff s control exist which raise some important policy implications.Meeting the family's needs and other implications for the practice of social work in long-term care are discussed.guidance was immeasurable and whose faitli in lne never waivered.I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to Kathy Mcltright for providing invaluable feedback when I felt stuck and fbr adding more to her already full schedule to see me through this until the end.A sincere thank you is extendecl to Dr. Lorna Guse for both planting the seed which grew into this work and for making thoughtful suggestions that improved its quality.I also want to say thank you to Dr. Carol Harvey for corning througl'r at the very last minute -I sincerely appreciate it.A big thank you goes to rny fellow MSW graduate students and great friends Heidi, Maggie, and Betty.Without them it's quite likely that this task would have taken ntuch Ionger to complete.Finally, but most importantly, I want to say thank you to rny husband and dearest
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".