Age differences in attitudes about older adults with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dementia, a term that describes a variety of brain conditions marked by gradual, persistent and progressive cognitive decline, affects a significant proportion of older adults. Older adults with dementia are sometimes perceived less favourably than those without dementia. Furthermore, compared to persons without dementia, those with dementia are often perceived by others as having reduced personhood. This study was aimed at investigating whether differences in attitudes towards dementia and personhood perceptions vary as a function of age group, care-giver status, attitudes towards ageing, dementia knowledge, gender and education. In total 196 younger, middle-aged and older adults were recruited. Findings revealed that being a care-giver as well as having less ageist attitudes were predictive of being more comfortable around persons with dementia, having more knowledge about dementia and ascribing greater personhood to people with dementia. Those with more dementia knowledge (prior to the study) were less comfortable around people with dementia. Finally, when controlling this prior dementia knowledge, older adults were more comfortable around people with dementia compared to younger and middle-aged adults. Gender and education were not associated with any of the variables under study. Findings contribute to a better understanding of the role of age- and care-giver-related factors in the determination of attitudes towards 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".