MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582683971 · doi:10.1300/j016v27n03_07

Reminiscing, Poetry Writing, and Remembering Boxes

2003· article· en· W1582683971 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActivities Adaptation & Aging · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReminiscencePoetryPersonhoodConfusionConstruct (python library)PsychologyResource (disambiguation)CognitionCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysisComputer scienceLiteratureArtEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article describes a method of facilitated communication for extending the well-known benefits of reminiscence by recording the words of nursing home residents and creating a concrete memory resource. Reminiscence sessions were conducted with five cognitively impaired older adults, whose words and phrases were arranged into poetry, revealing the essence of each person. Information gained was used to construct personal Remembering Boxes filled with meaningful objects and writings. As communication tools, the poems and Remembering Boxes helped staff learn more about residents, proving useful when residents were sleepless or agitated. Remembering Boxes offered residents enhanced interactions with their families and staff and greater control of those interactions. These tools can affirm the personhood of the residents amid their confusion and cognitive decline.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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