Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, the Alzheimer Society of Canada (ASC) has focused on providing support and education to caregivers of people with dementia rather than people with dementia themselves. However, there is a growing demand to expand the ways in which people with dementia can and want to contribute to all aspects of the Society's operations, from decision-making to providing input into dementia awareness strategies, programs and services. With this in mind, ASC developed an engagement resource guide which provides a framework for the promotion of well-being, choice, autonomy and open communication, all of which are foundational to the meaningful engagement of persons with dementia. In 2006 ASC commissioned a study to help identify strategies to promote the active participation of people with early stage dementia in the Society's policy, research and service delivery. ASC followed up with another study in 2011 to obtain specific recommendations on the steps needed for successful engagement of people with dementia in the work of ASC. Acting on these recommendations, in 2012, ASC formed an advisory group comprised of persons with dementia from across Canada. The group's mandate was to advise and share their perspectives on how ASC currently engages people with dementia in their work and what needs to be done to make the engagement of people with dementia more meaningful for both them and ASC. The advisory group helped develop an “Ethical Framework on Engaging People with Dementia” which guided ASC's future work in this area. In addition, with the advisory group's input a “Meaningful Engagement of People with Dementia: A Resource Guide” was developed. This guide provides tools, resources and strategies to assist organizations in promoting the meaningful engagement of people with dementia. Meaningful engagement provides people with dementia with an opportunity to give input into decisions that directly affect them, which can contribute to a sense of personal worth. In addition, it provides a vital perspective on different issues and promotes communication among people with dementia, Alzheimer Society staff and researchers. The resource guide will help build capacity within organizations to collaboratively address the needs of persons with 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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.010 |
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".