Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community-Based Dementia Care Networks: The Dementia Care Networks' Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Dementia Care Networks' Study examined the effectiveness of four community-based, not-for-profit dementia networks. The study involved assessing the relationship between the types of administrative and service-delivery exchanges that occurred among the networked agencies and the network members' perception of the effectiveness of these exchanges. DESIGN AND METHODS: With the use of a case-study method, the evolution, structure, and processes of each network were documented. Social network analysis using a standardized questionnaire completed by member agencies identified patterns of administrative and clinical exchanges among networked agencies. RESULTS: Differences were found between the four networks in terms of their perceptions of service-delivery effectiveness; perceptions of administrative effectiveness did not factor significantly. Exchanges between groups of agencies (cliques) within each of the four networks were found to be more critical than those between individual agencies within each network. IMPLICATIONS: Integration-measured by the types of exchanges within as opposed to across networks-differentiated the four networks studied. This research contributes to our understanding of the use of multiple measures to evaluate the inner workings of service delivery and their impact on elder health and elder health 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 | 0.030 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".