MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032588599 · doi:10.1177/1471301207075648

Personhood in dementia care

2007· article· en· W2032588599 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah O’Connor, Alison Phinney, André Smıth, Jeff Small, Barbara Purves, JoAnn Perry, Elisabeth Drance, Martha Donnelly, Habib Chaudhury, Lynn Beattie

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPersonhoodContext (archaeology)PsychologyNeuropathologyDiseaseEpistemologyMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia has been understood primarily as a biomedical phenomenon with a trajectory of irrevocable decline related to neurodegenerative changes. However, growing evidence suggests that the performance and behaviour of persons with dementia are not exclusively determined by neuropathology but are also influenced by personal histories, social interactions and social contexts. This evidence shifts attention from the disease process to the need for a more in-depth understanding of the place of personhood in dementia care. Despite its intuitive appeal however, there is limited empirical research grounding this approach to care. This article articulates a framework for organizing research in this area that is based on a critical review and synthesis of research. It encompasses three interrelated and intersecting domains of inquiry: the subjective experience of the person with dementia, the immediate interactional environment and the broader socio-cultural context. Each domain encapsulates a unique but interrelated dimension of a person-centred approach to dementia care.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations189
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207