UNCIVILIZED CHILDREN OR VICTIMS OF DEMENTIA: INTERPRETATIONS OF AGGRESSION IN ASSISTED LIVING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is increasing interest in examining aggression in older adults and persons living with dementia (PLWD) in nursing homes. Relational or indirect aggression between tenants is also of concern in assisted living (A/L). However, there is a dearth of knowledge about how people interpret the meaning of aggression in older adults in A/L. Such interpretations inform responses within interactions as well as in management, practice and policy. This study explored interpretations of aggression in older tenants of A/L through thematic and narrative analyses of qualitative interview data from 32 participants: 13 tenants and 19 staff. Tenants downplayed the existence of ‘bullies’ but spoke of (or themselves enacted, in the interview) relational aggression in tenant conflicts with ‘troublemakers,’ complainers, slackers and PLWD. Dementia was not universally interpreted as excusing inappropriate or aggressive behaviours, and tenants expressed discomfort interacting with PLWD. The narratives of both groups (tenants and workers) drew on and reproduced stigmatizing and/or patronizing views of dementia and aging. Workers commonly positioned dementia (or other conditions such as physical illness, changes in routine, isolation, and loss of independence) as mitigating culpability for aggression. They did so in part to avoid taking aggression personally; some were also concerned about protecting tenants from disciplinary measures. Narratives about aggression reflect and further reinforce relations of power within A/L, with implications for everyday interactions of life and work in these settings. A/L facilities can address relational aggression in part through addressing talk and actions that perpetuate ageism and dementiaism.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".