Bibliographic record
Abstract
People living with dementia tell us, Nothing about us, without us. With this mantra in mind, the Alzheimer Society of Canada (ASC) embarked on an initiative to enhance the engagement of persons with dementia in our work. By systematically incorporating the expertise of people with dementia and their families in fulfilling our mandate, we aim to improve the quality of our work and make it even more relevant, accountable and credible to stakeholders. During this process, ASC has examined and enhanced our own engagement practices while ensuring that what we learn is accessible not only throughout our organization nationwide but also to other organizations. In September 2012, ASC created an Advisory Group of people with dementia to inform our engagement of people with dementia in the mission-driven areas of our work. The Advisory Group first developed an ethical framework to guide the creation of a training plan and Resource Guide to assist organizations in meaningfully engaging people with dementia in all areas of their operations. The “Meaningful Engagement of People with Dementia” Training Plan was pilot tested at 6 different sites across Canada with the co-facilitation in each site by a person with dementia. Evaluation results of the training sessions were incorporated into the final draft of both the Training Plan and Resource Guide. An ethical framework for engagement, a Training Plan and Resource Guide were developed in both English and French. By using these resources within the Alzheimer Societies across Canada, we strive to increase the number of people with dementia volunteering, achieve consistency and upgrade the way in which persons with dementia are approached and invited to become involved in our work and in how they continue to be engaged. Using the resources developed, staff and volunteers are challenged to consider new opportunities to engage people with dementia in meaningful and ethical ways that not only benefit them but the organization, as well.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".