Learning to live with early stage dementia involved a continuous process of adjustment that comprised 5 stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Werezak L, Stewart N. Learning to live with early dementia. Can J Nurs Res2002 ; 34 : 67 –85. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] QUESTION: How do older adults learn to live with early stage dementia? Grounded theory. Saskatchewan, Canada. 3 women and 3 men (age range 61–79 y) with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or related disorder and early stage dementia. All participants lived at home with their spouses. Each person participated in 2 semistructured interviews. Transcripts from the first interviews were analysed using constant comparison, and 5 preliminary categories were identified. During second interviews (1–3 mo later) the author validated and expanded on these 5 categories. A theoretical framework outlined the continuous process of adjusting to early stage dementia, which comprised 5 stages: antecedents , anticipation , appearance , assimilation , and acceptance . Different levels of awareness connected the stages. As participants moved through the stages, their awareness shifted from highly introspective to more outwardly focussed. (1) Antecedents included subprocesses that made it difficult to obtain a … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DWerezak%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D34%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D67%26rft.epage%253D85%26rft.atitle%253DLearning%2Bto%2Blive%2Bwith%2Bearly%2Bdementia.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12122774%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12122774&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F2%2F64.1.atom
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".