MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063066865 · doi:10.1177/153331750101600206

Early stage dementia group: An innovative model of support for individuals in the early stages of dementia

2001· article· en· W2063066865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela M. Goldsilver, Marilyn Gruneir

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaFeelingPsychologyFacilitatorSupport groupLearned helplessnessCoping (psychology)Psychological interventionGriefGerontologyMental healthClinical psychologyPsychiatryDiseaseMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, supports and services for people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease have focused on the caregivers. The increase in early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease has resulted in greater numbers of older adults that have some insight and awareness of their deficits and are capable of dealing with the ramifications of their illness. Yet there are few places to turn for support and education. Circle of Care, a community-based home support agency in Toronto, has developed a support group for individuals with early stage dementia. Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Mental Health Services (COTA), a community-based rehabilitation agency, was invited to provide a co-facilitator for this group. To date, three groups have been held, each one having a fixed membership and meeting for eight sessions of one and a quarter hours. Topics focused on causation, coping with memory problems, loss, grief, and daily living skills. Positive themes emerged to reveal feelings of affirmation, camaraderie, and improved confidence, while feelings of helplessness and frustration were also raised. Implications for future planning and interventions also will be discussed in this paper.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207