MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1981484301 · doi:10.1145/1090785.1090812

Requirements gathering with alzheimer's patients and caregivers

2005· article· en· W1981484301 on OpenAlexaff
Kirstie Hawkey, Kori Inkpen, Kenneth Rockwood, Michael McAllister, Jacob Slonim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyFamily caregiversQuality of life (healthcare)Caregiver burdenPopulationGerontologyStress (linguistics)MedicineDementiaPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology may be able to play a role in improving the quality of life for Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers. We are evaluating the feasibility of an information appliance with the goal of alleviating repetitive questioning behaviour, a contributing factor to caregiver stress. Interviews were conducted with persons with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers to determine the nature of the repetitive questioning behaviour, the information needs of patients, and the interaction abilities of both the patients and the caregivers. We report results of these interviews and discuss the challenges of requirements gathering with persons with Alzheimer's disease and the feasibility of introducing an information appliance to this population.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations67
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→