Accessibility to long-term care: A comparison of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada and Clark County, Nevada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been extensive debate in this country on the ability of the health care system to adequately distribute Long Term Care (LTC) to the elderly. Three perspectives have emerged to explain current problems in access to LTC by the elderly indigent: The Market Model Perspective, Weber's Bureaucratic Perspective, and the Neo-Marxist Perspective. This study will assess these three theories, by examining constraints to accessibility within two systems, Canada and the United States. The LTC delivery service systems of the Fredericton region of New Brunswick and Clark County, Nevada, were examined in the summer and fall of 1992, to ascertain impediments to access as identified by service providers; The research also analyzes the Fredericton region, before and after their enactment of the Single-Entry Point System for LTC. The research is composed of three components: (1) Historical Perspective, (2) Interviews with LTC providers and, (3) Content analysis. Of the three perspectives, the Neo-Marxist Perspective was found to best explain identifiable constraints among the two countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".