EFFECTS OF RECIPIENT COGNITIVE STATUS ON PERCEPTIONS OF MISTREATMENT WHILE IN CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown older adults with dementia are at a greater risk for mistreatment while in care compared to cognitively healthy older adults (VandeWeerd & Paveza, 2006). While the focus in literature has been to implicate caregiver burden, our research has examined the impact of dementia stereotypes (see Runac, Kwong See, & Choy, 2017). We found that when a care recipient was described as being in care because of Alzheimer’s dementia (cognitively unhealthy) compared to diabetes (cognitively healthy), viewers of a video tape depicting an abusive exchange perceived cognitive and physical competence as lower when the care recipient had dementia. The caregiver responsible for the abusive care was perceived as more respectful, nurturing, competent, and benevolent when the care recipient had dementia compared to diabetes. This study added another cognitively healthy comparison (broken hip) to examine if the stereotype of enhanced physical ability within a dementia status would emerge. As we had found previously, a care recipient with dementia was perceived as lower in cognitive and physical competence compared to cognitively healthy conditions (broken hip, diabetes), as behaving more respectful compared to diabetes, and more satisfied compared to the broken hip condition. The caregiver was generally perceived more positively in the dementia condition. Our research illustrates how dementia stereotypes may lead to the abuse of a person with dementia being perceived more leniently.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".