MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Caring for older people with dementia in hospital Part one: challenges

2012· article· en· W202200647 on OpenAlex
Lesley Baillie, Janet Cox, Jane Merritt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Older People · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsDementiaNursingFocus groupOlder peoplePsychologyAged careMedicineMedical educationGerontologySociologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nursing students often care for older people with dementia during placements. The quality of the students' experience is important. AIM: To explore adult nursing students' experiences of caring for older people with dementia in hospital. METHOD: Four focus groups were conducted at one English university. The data were analysed thematically and this article presents the challenges that students experienced. FINDINGS: The hospital's physical environment and organisational culture, deficits in the knowledge and skills of staff and students, and negative staff attitudes led to students struggling to provide care. CONCLUSION: More dementia-friendly hospital environments and better educated staff will enhance students' learning experiences. Nursing students require early preparation for caring for older people with dementia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.260 · 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