MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W97823971

Competency of Seniors with Dementia to Live Independently and Manage Finance: Synthesis of the Legislation in Quebec

2013· article· en· W97823971 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dominique Giroux, Line Robichaud, Sylvie Tétreault, Lyse Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationHealth carePublic relationsProcess (computing)Population ageingPopulationPublic healthNeeds assessmentNursingPsychologyMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The socio demographic data report that the population will double in less than 30 years in Quebec (Curateur public du Quebec, 2010a). This situation is concerning due to increasing health problems associated with aging. The socio demographic reality brings an additional challenge for health and social professionals who have a key role in regard to the assessment of the ability of seniors to live independently and manage finances. The aim of this article is to summarize the Quebec’s legislation related to the competency assessment. The competency assessment is a complex process, which implies the consideration of various components: legal, ethical and clinical. No assessment tool is available in Quebec to support the health care professionals in the assessment process of competency of a person to live independently and manage finances. Considering these increasing problems, it appears imperative to consider the assessment process of competency to provide to the Quebec’s health care professionals valid assessment tools for an objective and rigorous assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique socialeSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207