MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015240914

Social Isolation Detection Checklist

2019· article· en· W7015240914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSOURCE Sheridan's Institutional Repository (Sheridan College) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101HyporeflexiaFusible alloyDiafiltrationDysgeusiaArticular cartilage damage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Social Isolation Detection Checklist is a preliminary screening tool that can help you determine if an older adult might be at risk of social isolation. This tool can be completed one on one with an older adult. Alternatively, if you have been working with an older adult for an extended period of time and are familiar with their case history you can use your insider knowledge, intake records and case notes to complete this tool and determine risk. A list of recommendations (referrals) that correspond directly with the various categories in the Detection Tool is also included.\nThis resource is included in the Social Isolation and Loneliness Toolkit, created by the Centre for Elder Research in Oakville ON, Canada. The Toolkit is part of a research project titled “Building Connected Communities: improving Community Supports to Reduce Loneliness and Social Isolation in Immigrants 65+”. The research focused on exploring strategies to effectively reach out to, and support, older immigrants who may be experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing, social isolation and/or loneliness.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.008

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSOURCE Sheridan's Institutional Repository (Sheridan College)Same topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207