Theoretical foundations guiding culture change: The work of the Partnerships in Dementia Care Alliance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longstanding concerns about quality care provision, specifically in the area of long-term care, have prompted calls for changing the culture of care to reflect more client-driven and relationship-centred models. Despite an increase in culture change initiatives in both Canada and the United States, there is insufficient information about the theories and approaches that guide culture change. The purpose of this paper is to describe a culture change initiative currently underway in Canada, the Partnerships in Dementia Care Alliance, and the theoretical foundations informing our work. More specifically, we describe how the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias framework, the authentic partnership approach, participatory action research and Appreciative Inquiry have been integrated to guide a culture change process that encourages working collaboratively, thinking and doing differently and re-imagining new possibilities for changing the culture of 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it