MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154186194 · doi:10.1177/1074840713486727

Shifting Patterns of Everyday Activity in Early Dementia

2013· article· en· W2154186194 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison Phinney, Sherry Dahlke, Barbara Purves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPersonhoodDementiaNegotiationMasculinityIdentity (music)PsychologyInterpretative phenomenological analysisPeriod (music)Developmental psychologyEveryday lifeObservational studyQualitative researchGender studiesSociologyMedicinePsychoanalysisAestheticsEpistemologySocial scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we draw from a larger study to examine experiences of two men and their families as they negotiate changing patterns of everyday activity in the months after receiving a diagnosis of dementia. We conducted in-depth interpretive phenomenological analysis of interview and observational data that were gathered from the men and various members of their families (n = 7) over a period several months. Findings are presented as three themes: The best kind of man (highlighting participants' historical positioning); It's a little different now (recognizing challenges posed by the dementia); and You have to do something (showing how the men and their families responded to and accommodated these challenges). We discuss these findings in terms of how everyday activity is not only important for supporting personhood in dementia, but it also contributes to sustaining family identity, and does so in a way that is deeply influenced by gender and masculinity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207