Community-Based Service Models for Seniors in Newfoundland & Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides a synthesis of the relevant research-based evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of integrated care models for seniors and their caregivers living in the community. The report also provides a synthesis of several less complex interventions for the same patient/client populations, including caregiver support, fall prevention programs, home visits, respite care, transitional care and end-of-life care. In addition to the synthesis of research-based evidence, this report also provides an analysis of local contextual factors and the impact they may have on the reported clinical and cost effectiveness of different interventions, programs, and approaches. \nThis report is intended to inform and assist decision makers in the Department of Health and Community Services of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province’s Regional Health Authorities who are involved in the planning, implementation, and delivery of services for older patients/clients who live at home and for their caregivers. This report is also intended for practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in providing services to both caregivers and to older patients/clients who live at home. \nDecision makers from other jurisdictions, especially those with similar geography, resources and potential client populations, may also find the content helpful. The report includes explanations of research terms and technical language; accordingly, there is no need to have a specialized medical or health background in order to understand its content.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".