MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007914442 · doi:10.3138/cja.26.4.343

Volunteers' Experiences Visiting the Cognitively Impaired in Nursing Homes: A Friendly Visiting Program

2007· article· en· W2007914442 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thecla Damianakis, Laura M. Wagner, Syrelle Bernstein, Elsa Marziali

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyNursingObservational studyQuality of life (healthcare)PersonhoodNursing homesAffect (linguistics)GerontologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two challenges facing nursing-home care today are understanding the concept of quality of life as it relates to cognitively impaired residents and finding effective ways to ensure that it is achieved. Canadian director Allan King's documentary, Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company , filmed at Baycrest, captures a method for enhancing the quality of life of six cognitively impaired residents. While the film suggests an intervention model implemented by volunteers, there are challenges unique to institution-based programs (i.e., the recruitment and retention of volunteers). One of the challenges is the fear that volunteers may experience when interacting with the cognitively impaired. We conducted a pilot study of a model for training volunteers to provide friendly visiting and evaluated the impact on the participating residents. Observational accounts of volunteer-resident interactions and seven volunteer interviews were analysed and yielded several themes-(a) relationship building, (b) contribution of the environment, (c) preserving personhood, (d) resident-centred presence and the quality of the moment-and several themes related to the volunteers' role and their perceived impact on the residents. Discussed are the implications for volunteer programs in long-term health care settings.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207