Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classic research and care traditions concerned with dementia (biomedical, psychological and sociological) have mainly focused on the person with dementia and his/her spousal caregiver as individuals living in parallel. That is, couples are not really considered as living-in-relationship. Researchers, for example, have examined the relative impact of burden and stress on people with dementia and their spouses. People living with dementia and their partners as care providers, however, are fundamentally living-in-relationship. In general, it is the historical and contextual bond found in the marital relationship, and in particular the commitment to the marriage, that influences how dementia is encountered and lived by couples. Relationships, as articulated in the marriage biography, allow us to understand dementia and its effect on the interaction of partners and families as a potentially important resource. The couples' marriage biography can potentially provide an understanding of the interaction between marital relationship (its quality) and dementia. The impact of dementia on the person/spouse and the marital relationship, as well as the impact of the marital relationship on the dementia experience, should be of central concern to researchers and health care providers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.011 |
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".