A good life with dementia : collective action for positive change in the Capital Regional District, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is rapidly transforming from an individual health matter into a social issue of concern at the community or collective level. Dementia friendly communities may provide a vehicle to regional community development for people with dementia and carers with unexpected potential benefits for all citizens. Employing an action research engagement model, the inquiry engaged stakeholders of the dementia community to form a regional systems perspective on leverage points for collective action around dementia issues, grounded by the perspectives of people living with dementia. The methodological framework included focus groups with people with dementia and carers as a participant dyad, a world café with service providers and planners, and interviews with formal leaders, followed by thematic analysis. The study concluded that people with dementia and carers living in community settings in the CRD experience disabling factors in their internal and external environments that threaten their independence and quality of life. This is likely due to a lack of collaboration, coordination and innovation at organizational and systems levels. At the same time, resources to support positive change exist within the CRD, including an appetite for culturally influenced change around dementia issues, and willingness among key stakeholders to collaborate to build a new paradigm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".