Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how the provision of information about dementia impacts on carers and the caring relationships in which they are involved. Narrative interviews were undertaken with 25 carers who had undertaken the Alzheimer's Society - run Carer Information and Support Programme in one of seven sites across London and the South East. Thematic analysis identified two major themes relating to the impact of information on carer and caring relationships ('understanding and care' and 'emotional impact of information'), and another theme relating to the context within which the information was provided and shared ('relational practices in information-giving and receiving'). Findings suggest that while information, particularly in the form of new knowledge about how dementia progresses, helps to improve understanding and increase confidence, competence and a sense of security and achievement in caring practices, it can also confound and complicate caring practices in ways that reflect and reinforce previously difficult relationships. Providing information in the context of carers' support was important for most participants but others were less able to benefit from this, especially where they felt unrecognised or where the timing of information felt inappropriate to their needs. Our analysis complements and extends previous scholarship emphasising the relational nature of care by showing how information can both enhance and complicate care relationships, depending on both specific care contexts and on how carers experience the context of information provision.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".