Étude exploratoire : perceptions, croyances, connaissances et attitudes d’un groupe d’aînés francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick concernant la démence et son diagnostic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude explore les perceptions, croyances, connaissances et attitudes d’un groupe d’aînés francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick face à la démence et à son diagnostic; le diagnostic précoce de la démence est crucial autant pour l’identification des causes réversibles que pour la mise en place rapide d’interventions de prévention secondaire. Quatre-vingt-onze francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick âgés de 65 ans et plus ont été interrogés face à la démence et à son diagnostic dans cette étude quantitative exploratoire. Entre autres, bien que les participants de cette étude aient rapporté avoir peur de recevoir un diagnostic de démence, la plupart voudraient recevoir le diagnostic s’ils en étaient atteints. Les résultats soulignent l’importance d’éduquer la population face à la démence et aux services d’évaluation de la démence. D’autres implications sont discutées.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".