MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2899698640 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.3229

PEOPLE OF DEMENTIA - THE POWER OF STORY TELLING

2018· article· en· W2899698640 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Dobbs, James D. Jamieson, Lesley Charles, Karenn Chan, Peng Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaDignityStigma (botany)PsychologyPower (physics)DiseaseMedicinePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stigma is one of the most significant barriers to living life with dignity for people with dementia and their caregivers. Story telling is a powerful way to engage an audience, and for the storyteller, it can be an effective and therapeutic way to communicate their emotions and deliver an important message. In our blog, People of Dementia, individuals with dementia highlight who they were before the disease and how things have changed. The common thread is the enduring “person” behind the exterior that is obscured by dementia. Caregivers highlight the challenges of caring for a family member with dementia. By allowing the audience to form a connection with who the individual was prior to the disease, and understanding the changes that have come as a result of dementia to both the individual and their support network, participants will have a greater appreciation of those affected by dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→