MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602576308 · doi:10.1177/1471301217699676

Responding to Aggression and Reactive Behaviours in the Home

2017· article· en· W2602576308 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Herron, Mark W. Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityBrandon University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyDementiaDevelopmental psychologyMedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behaviours such as hitting, spitting, swearing and kicking can be a common response to personal, social and environmental challenges experienced by people with dementia. Little attention, however, has been given to how partners in care experience and respond to these behaviours in the home. This paper examines the emerging theme of 'aggression,' in seven interviews with nine former partners in care of people with dementia in Ontario, Canada. We explore how partners in care talk about, interpret and respond to these behaviours drawing on recent conceptualizations of structural and interpersonal violence in health and social geography and contributing to the growing body of research on relational care. We discuss the responses to, and implications of, these behaviours at a range of spatial scales and identify important considerations for future research.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207