Behavioral Mapping of Residents’ Activity in Five Residential Style Care Centers for Elderly Persons Diagnosed with Dementia: Small Differences in Sites Can Affect Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The principal purpose of the study was to investigate the day-long patterns of activity of residents and staff in five similar care centers for people with Alzheimer's disease. The Therapeutic Environment Assessment Scale provided an architectural basis for assessing the significance of activity data gathered through behavior mapping. Slight architectural differences contributed to effects that were large and enduring, producing as much as a 50% differences between sites in the portion of residents involved. Taken together, the results suggest that resident status, use patterns, and architectural design details of a homelike residential setting have significant effects on the daily activities of residents. KEYWORDS: dementiaphysical environmentlong-term careresidential careassisted livingTESS-2+direct observationbehavior mapping Supported in part by an Alzheimer Care Research Grant, awarded by a joint committee of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, and CapitalCare, Edmonton, AB to D. Milke as principal investigator. The researchers thank the staff of the five centers for their efforts and the residents and families for their participation. Notes bDoes not include research/teaching wing. Total for entire floor space is 40,382 sq. ft. cRoom at WDS was not intended as a lounge, i.e., a retreat from work; to professionalize the care staff role it was to serve as a place to read and discuss work. At other sites the lunch room also served as a lounge. dRoom was intended as a multi-purpose room. bItems used to compute the 18-item Special Care Environmental Quality Scale; item 27b and 27c were treated as a single item and item 15 was misnumbered in the TESS-2+ Revised version (as item 13). cItem 20 is the percentage of common rooms with signs/graphics; floor plans in all sites allowed a view into common rooms (scored as zero). dAn item was unintentionally omitted from the TESS-2+ scoring form (10 in Odors and 11 in Safety). eComposite Above Average Quality Score represents the percentage of TESS-2+ domains that were above average in quality. ∗Resident data were adjusted to show the mean percent of residents at a site who were observed per scan per day. aASB—Asbury Place; MDR—Marjorie Doyle Rockwell Place; MPN—McConnell Place North; MPW—McConnell Place West; WDS—Woodside Place. bTotal areas is the sum of the following: total common, total outdoor and total house. cTotal house areas is the sum of Houses #1, House #2, and House #3. Blank cells indicate that the question was not applicable. dHouse kitchen and living/dining rooms are summed across houses. ∗Resident data were adjusted to show the mean percent of residents at a site who were observed per scan per day. Dashes indicate that residents were not observed in these areas.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".