Chemical and Physical Restraints, Segregation and Surveillance: Risks and Benefits - 22nd Annual John K. Friesen Conference - Taboo Topics in Residential Care (2013)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This video comprises presentations for the topic: “Chemical and Physical Restraints, Segregation and Surveillance: Risks and Benefits” held at the 22nd Annual John K. Friesen Conference, "Taboo Topics in Residential Care," MAY 27-28, 2013, Vancouver, BC.\n \nChair:  Sue Bedford (Director, Community Care Facility Licensing, Health Authorities Division, BC Ministry of Health).\n \nPresentations:\nLeanne Dospital (Services to Adults, Public Guardian and Trustee of BC);\nElisa-Marie Weatherby (Pharmacist, Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services);\nSusan Madlung (Clinical Educator, Vancouver Coastal Seniors Program).\n \nThe Simon Fraser University Gerontology Research Centre (GRC) and the associated Gerontology Department in cooperation with Fraser Health, the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, the Seniors’ Directorate, Ministry of Health, Province of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health have brought together a group of Canadian experts in residential care policy, practice and research to address such difficult-to-deal-with issues as resident-resident aggression; theft and financial exploitation in institutional settings; alcohol, drug and tobacco use and abuse; sexuality; and dying and death. The conference will also discuss when it is and is not appropriate to use physical and/or chemical restraints and anti-psychotic medications. The conference also features a public lecture that will present a national perspective on elder abuse in Canada.\nThe objective of the conference is not just to raise awareness of these issues but also to identify steps that are or should be taken to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of residents of long term care facilities and those who care for them – both today and for the future.\n We also gratefully acknowledge a grant from the SFU Library's Scholarly Digitization Fund for videography and post-production editing.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it