MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568879120 · doi:10.1177/0840470416664533

A review of Canadian and international dementia strategies

2016· review· en· W2568879120 on OpenAlex
Cole Edick, Nicole Holland, Jessica Ashbourne, Jacobi Elliott, Paul Stolee

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaThe InternetWorkforceThematic analysisPublic relationsHealth careMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyQualitative researchSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To inform future strategy development in Canada and other jurisdictions, we undertook an Internet search to identify existing national and Canadian provincial dementia strategies and their major themes. Twenty-two dementia strategies were identified through an Internet search, supplemented by hand searches of reference lists of retrieved documents. Thematic analysis identified 17 strategic themes; common themes included improved diagnoses and assessments, increased access to care, and improved education of the healthcare workforce. This review reinforces the importance of a multi-faceted response to dementia and illustrates that, despite variation in needs across populations and geographies, there are many common priorities. The strategic themes identified in this review may provide a useful starting point for the development of new national strategies or, alternatively, as a check to determine if important priority areas have been missed in strategy development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.186 · 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