Theoretical foundations guiding culture change: The work of the Partnerships in Dementia Care Alliance
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.
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 | 0.050 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.129 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".