Components of coordinated care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on the development of an instrument to measure dementia patients' and their families' experiences with care provision. Using the responses of 267 care recipient/caregiver dyads, exploratory factor analysis was used to extract an underlying structure of the dyads' assessments of their experiences with dementia networks of care. The results suggested that from the perspective of the care recipient and caregiver, it is the individuals who they interact with in their care journey that define and shape the evaluation of their experiences. In the early stages of dementia, the family physician plays a central role in helping dyads understand the disease and the networks of care that are available to them; in later stages of the disease, it is the activities of the health care worker who is central to the dyad's lived experiences of the care they are receiving. The third important construct linked to the period when a care recipient and caregiver dyad was increasingly aware that dementia services may be needed and the process of assessment and placement was underway. Having information about what resources are available and how they can be accessed, and being able to complete assessments and placements in a timely fashion, was central to their assessment of care networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".