Bibliographic record
Abstract
This first-person, qualitative narrative follows the author's encounters with Maureen (M), a resident in a long-term care (LTC) facility whose husband has recently died. The author (C), a Spiritual Care Professional, explores how shifts in identity provoked by dementia impact Maureen's grief. The author focuses on intersections between identity and dimensions of care, as clients with dementia lose the self due to the effects of the disease processes and/or by grief. This article challenges Spiritual Care Professionals to think beyond the neurologically dissipative symptoms of dementia towards reconstructing clients' identities using new feelings and conceptualizations and drawing from memory-based narratives where possible. The author calls for all paid caregivers and Spiritual Care Professionals in particular to consider creatively rethinking their actions and values using the social constructivist model when interacting with clients. Caregivers can encourage the reconstruction of self and identity among clients with dementia by recognizing that clients still feel all emotions even if they are no longer able to express these emotions through words.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".