Negotiating access to a diagnosis of dementia: Implications for policies in health and social care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 'Pathways to Diagnosis' study captured the experience of the prediagnosis period of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias through indepth interviews with 29 persons with dementia and 34 of their family caregivers across four sites: anglophones in Calgary, francophones in Ottawa, Chinese-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and Indo-Canadians in Toronto. In this cross-site analysis, we use the 'Candidacy' framework to comprehensively explore the challenges to securing a diagnosis of dementia in Canada and to develop relevant health and social policy. Candidacy views eligibility for appropriate medical care as a process of joint negotiation between individuals and health services, which can be understood relative to seven dimensions: identification of need, navigation, appearances at services, adjudication by providers, acceptance of/resistance to offers, permeability of services and local conditions. Interviewees experienced challenges relative to each of the seven dimensions and these varied in form and emphasis across the four ethno-linguistic groups.
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 | 0.021 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".