Tom Kitwood on dementia: A reader and critical commentary. Edited by Clive Baldwin, Andrea Capstick, Open University Press, 384 p.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tom Kitwood on Dementia: A Reader and Critical Commentary. Edited by Clive Baldwin, Andrea Capstick, Open University Press, 384 p. Price: £22.99. J. Timmins*, * Advanced Practitioner, Nursing Home Support, Manchester Community Health The name‘Tom Kitwood’ was unknown to me but this book gave me an immediate appreciation of his work and thinking. It sets the background to his contribution to dementia care by noting that his core discipline was engineering, giving him a mindset of observing how things (in this case people) operate in a complex and chaotic ‘real world’ that defines the purist attempts of scientific explanation. The inability of an organic explanation for the development of dementia to provide all the answers is proved and a dualist approach balancing organic causes with those of ‘malignant social psychology’ recommended. Since I readily accept this duality in my work providing support services to nursing homes, I found this point somewhat laboured at times but was pleased to see the book go on to outline the consequences of the social aetiology for dignity in care and for slowing, controversially even reversing, the course of the disease. The book also places the social aspects of dementia in a political and social policy context which is vital if we are to respond to the challenges of increased incidence for our society. In this respect, I believe this book is of use to commissioners and practitioners alike.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.015 |
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".