Families’ and Professional Caregivers’ Views of Using Advanced Technology to Track People With Dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in this study we examined the ethical aspects of the use of the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to track people with dementia. The findings are based on qualitative data gathered from focus groups of family and professional caregivers. The most important theme was the need to balance patients' need for safety with the need to preserve their autonomy and privacy. The main potential benefit of the use of GPS was related to the peace of mind of the caregivers themselves. The findings also suggest that caregivers' views change according to the locus of responsibility of the caregivers for the safety of people with dementia. The caregivers give preference to patients' safety more than autonomy when they are responsible for the patients. When the patients are under the responsibility of other caregivers, they give preference to patients' autonomy more than their safety. Overall, the variety and the depth of the views of different stakeholders toward the use of electronic tracking for people with dementia presented in this article provide a meaningful contribution to the ethical debate on this topic.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it