MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133414567

A Call for New Innovative Models for Continuing Care Centres That Humanize Care and Promote Quality of Life

2003· article· en· W7133414567 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irene Coulson, Ann Keane, Sean Himsl, Kevin Davediuk

Bibliographic record

VenueRUNE (Research UNE) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuing careContinuing educationQuality (philosophy)Older peopleQuality of life (healthcare)Aged care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1996, there were 240,000 Canadians receiving care in continuing care centres and this number is expected to triple or even quadruple by the year 2031 (Health Canada, 2002). Currently more women than men (38% v/s 24%) over the age of 85 years require continuing care (nursing home), and this age group will continue to be the fastest growing group in the future (Health Canada, 2002). Mullins and Hartley (2002) estimate that 43% of older people aged 65 years and older will spend some time in a continuing care centre before they die.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.266
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRUNE (Research UNE)Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207