MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899838837 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.780

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF A SOCIAL INTERVENTION ON PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA

2018· article· en· W2899838837 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart MacDonald, Debra Sheets, Andrew Smith, Mary Clare Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MoodQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyCognitionChoirClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arts-based interventions for person’s with dementia (PwD) and their caregivers represent an inexpensive non-pharmacological intervention with the potential to reduce healthcare costs and improve quality of life. This study explores the impact of participation in a community-based intergenerational choir on changes in psychological function for those with dementia and their caregivers. Participants engaged in the social-cognitive choir intervention on a weekly basis, with a range of outcomes (e.g., cognition, mood, quality of life, physiological function) assessed on up to 5 occasions spanning a 6- to 8-month period. This novel intensive measurement burst design will facilitate both between- and within-person analyses, including nuanced evaluation of whether psychological function improves post intervention relative to an individual’s personal average, yielding a conservative within-person test of the benefits of intervention. Discussion will focus on the promise of such interventions for mitigating AD symptoms and facilitating the psychological health of caregivers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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 AgingSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207