MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005372738 · doi:10.1177/1468794106065005

Expressions of personhood in Alzheimer’s: moving from ethnographic text to performing ethnography

2006· article· en· W2005372738 on OpenAlexafffund
Pia Kontos, Gary Naglie

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Nurses Foundation
KeywordsPersonhoodEmbodied cognitionEthnographySociologyImmediacyAppealAestheticsPsychologyEpistemologyAnthropologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the translation of ethnographic research on embodied selfhood in Alzheimer’s disease into a dramatic production for nurses and ancillary health care professionals working with persons who are cognitively impaired. The appeal of dramatic performance as an alternative medium for the translation and dissemination of research is that it provides an accessible presentation of research to audiences of diverse disciplinary backgrounds, it recovers the experiential immediacy of the body present in the original data-gathering setting, and it can foster critical awareness and engage audiences to envision new possibilities. It is our contention that Expressions of Personhood in Alzheimer’s is an ethnodramatic production that will bring to fruition all of these strengths of the performance paradigm.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.043
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.856
GPT teacher head0.753
Teacher spread0.104 · 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

Citations99
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative ResearchSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207