Editorial introduction: Special issue on Citizenship and Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 10 years, attention to notions of citizenship has played an increasingly important role in dementia discourse. Arguably, the focus on citizenship represents a ‘‘fourth moment’’ (Bartlett & O’Connor, 2010) or turn, in the development of understanding around dementia, where dementia moved from first being recognized predominantly as a natural sign of aging (senility), to a second period of constructing it as a primarily biomedical condition, followed by a third shift toward a more relational understanding that addressed the importance of seeing the person beyond the medical condition, to now considering the importance of embedding responses and relationships within broader socio-political practices and discourses. The language of citizenship challenges the tendency to problematize the experience of dementia as an individual experience by drawing attention to how people’s experiences are shaped by socio-cultural practices and assumptions: the personal is political. At core, it offers hope for the continued development of inclusionary practices that foster the possibilities for people living with dementia to live well and fully with their diagnosis. Different frameworks have been offered for conceptualizing citizenship as practice. Bartlett and O’Connor (2007, 2010), for example, conceptualize an understanding of social citizenship as a status, practice and relationship grounded by six fundamental rights. These include: opportunities for growth; to have one’s self recognized in a holistic way beyond simply that of a person with dementia; to retain purpose in one’s life irrespective of diagnosis; to participate as an active agent in one’s life; to create a sense of solidarity and belonging with others; and importantly, the right to live life free of discrimination. Another way for conceptualizing is offered by Gilmour and Brannelly (2010) who draw on relational care ethics to argue for a more relational citizenship grounded in attentiveness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness. (See also Brannelly, 2011a, 2011b). Baldwin (2008) draws attention to yet another aspect of citizenship as practice, that of
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.027 |
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".