MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Giving Voice to Persons Living With Dementia: The Researcher’s Opportunities and Challenges

2003· review· en· W2166169392 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa Moore, Jane Hollett

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodDementiaQualitative researchPsychologyEngineering ethicsMedicineSociologyEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few qualitative studies have examined the experiences of persons living with dementia and little has been written about the opportunities and challenges for the researchers. This article challenges the assumption of dwindling personhood among persons with dementia. Methodological challenges which may be encountered by qualitative researchers are outlined and specific strategies for addressing these challenges are described including: modifying consent/assent procedures, adjusting sample size, facilitating communication, and making the most of the data.

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)0.260
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.273
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2600.273
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0150.020
Scholarly communication0.0130.025
Open science0.0060.016
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.224 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations131
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207