Exploratory Research: An Intergenerational Program in a CHSLD/RPA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study sought to explore the impact of an intergenerational program occurring in a Quebecois CHSLD/RPA on the residents' end-of-life course. It focuses on later life experiences and the particularities of living and aging in an institution offering this kind of initiative while taking into consideration the current context. An immersion into their "milieu de vie" allowed to conceptualize four main experiences: \n•\tTheir Admission and Transition Process \n•\tTheir Integration and Daily Living \n•\tThe Elaboration and Participation in an Intergenerational Program \n•\tThe Pandemic \nSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with three coordinators and three residents. \nWhat it is to live and age in this kind of institution is not linear; it is a negotiation with oneself and others and an ongoing process. There is no clear definition of aging properly either, but at the root of their testimonies, we can find that key elements can improve or impede the quality of end-of-life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".