MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404999516 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n9p122

Quality of life in dementia

2016· article· en· W2404999516 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Motley, Carrie Lynn Buch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyWell-beingGerontologyQuality (philosophy)Life satisfactionDiseaseMedicineSocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the concept of quality of life as it relates to people with dementia. Dementia is a disease that causes a decline in functional abilities which leads to a decrease in quality of life. Quality of life can be defined as an overall well-being that combines objective and subjective evaluations of an individual’s perceived state of satisfaction in their abilities and achievements. Wellbeing is further categorized in six dimensions which are: physical wellbeing, material wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, social wellbeing, spiritual wellbeing, and mental wellbeing. If these six dimensions of wellbeing are not achieved in the life of an individual with dementia, may experience a decline in overall quality of life. Nurses have a critical role in helping persons with dementia maintain or improve their QOL by gaining a better understanding of QOL, its significance, and what it means to each individual. In this paper, strategies for maintaining or improving quality of life in the six dimensions of wellbeing are discussed. In addition, areas of future research are recommended.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.373
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.208 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207