MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891774981 · doi:10.1177/1049732318798358

Wandering as a Sociomaterial Practice: Extending the Theorization of GPS Tracking in Cognitive Impairment

2018· article· en· W2891774981 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Wherton, Trisha Greenhalgh, Rob Procter, S. E. Shaw, James Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsAffordanceMateriality (auditing)Global Positioning SystemEthnographyContext (archaeology)PsychologyCognitionTracking (education)Identity (music)SociologyCognitive psychologyAestheticsComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic tracking through global positioning systems (GPSs) is used to monitor people with cognitive impairment who "wander" outside the home. This ethnographic study explored how GPS-monitored wandering was experienced by individuals, lay carers, and professional staff. Seven in-depth case studies revealed that wandering was often an enjoyable and worthwhile activity and helped deal with uncertainty and threats to identity. In what were typically very complex care contexts, GPS devices were useful to the extent that they aligned with a wider sociomaterial care network that included lay carers, call centers, and health and social care professionals. In this context, "safe" wandering was a collaborative accomplishment that depended on the technology's materiality, affordances, and aesthetic properties; a distributed knowledge of the individual and the places they wandered through, and a collective and dynamic interpretation of risk. Implications for design and delivery of GPS devices and services for cognitive impairment are discussed.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207