MAPPING A CRITICAL ETHICAL LANDSCAPE FOR DEMENTIA: RESEARCH, POLICY, AND PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of dementia, ethical issues have primarily been considered from a biomedical perspective, with a focus on norms for medical treatment and participation in medical research trials. The primacy of the biomedical approach to ethics in dementia has eclipsed a broader understanding of the cultural, political and philosophical assumptions that underpin current research, policy and practices. This symposium will interrogate current ethical issues in dementia, raise concerns about the appropriateness of biomedical approaches to support ethical decision-making, and identify gaps that require critical ethical intervention. Paper presentations will explore these issues through empirical studies and critical analyses of case examples including: 1) New policy and ethical frameworks for guiding future research and funding efforts in dementia (e.g. Responsible Innovation and Institutional Corruption); 2) Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and the ethical fallout of anticipating testing, being tested, being diagnosed, and living with MCI; 3) A new ethic of sexuality that upholds and supports the sexual rights of older adults living with dementia in long term residential care settings; and 4) Application of ethical perspectives on flourishing and solidarity to dementia care in order to shift societal response from a disability model to an agency preserving model, and from custodial (comfort and control) goals to ecologically enabling (relational) goals of care. Conclusions consider how these case studies map a new and critical ethical landscape for research, policy, and practice for dementia care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".