MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2600107698 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2017.25002

Three Values That Should Underlie Community-Based Dementia Care Strategies

2016· letter· en· W2600107698 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nisha Sutherland, Elaine Wiersma

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaInclusion (mineral)Equity (law)Diversity (politics)PsychologyGerontologySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychologyDiseaseLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To guide action towards a community-based dementia care strategy, Morton-Chang et al. provide the following three key strategic pillars: putting people with dementia first, supporting informal caregivers and enabling local communities to support people with dementia. While, in principle we agree with these pillars, the ways in which we interpret and implement them differ. We propose three values that should underlie any discussion of dementia policy, strategy and change and that place people with dementia at the heart of these discussions: that of the rights of people with dementia, of diversity and equity, and inclusion.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.106
Scholarly communication0.0270.029
Open science0.0070.024
Research integrity0.0830.097
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→