Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of intimacy and aging remains one of our last taboos. Factor dementia into this mix and one confronts many challenging practice dilemmas, often influenced by strong opinions, values and beliefs. Health care providers in all settings, but most notably in care environments where there may be privacy, consent and capacity concerns, face these challenges with very little support, few resources and much misinformation. A collaboration of clinical practice and dementia subject matter experts in one major metropolitan area has identified a need to help health care providers address issues of intimacy in their dementia care practice. Gaps exist in knowledge related to the appropriate application of consent and capacity laws as well as in a structured approach to assist health care providers in understanding what triggers, including a desire for intimate contact, might be influencing an individual’s behaviour and to offer a systematic approach to intervention. Resources have been developed to help health care providers to: a) reflect on their values, attitudes and beliefs in considering the rights of adults living with dementia to express their sexuality and need for intimacy; b) understand how personal beliefs may influence practice; c) learn person centred strategies to enhance the quality of life of persons with dementia in their care. This poster presentation will highlight the application of person-centred strategies and resources to increase staff skill and sensitivity when approaching challenging situations involving persons with dementia and the expression of their sexuality and need for intimacy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".