Conceptualizing Participation and Communication Disorder in Dementia Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The overarching aim of this article is to explore the relating concepts of participation and communication in dementia care research and to propose future avenues of research within the field of communication disorders. Individuals with dementia comprise speech-language pathologists' largest clinical population. In the context of a growing international movement toward ending discrimination and increasing social participation of persons with dementia, understanding how communication disability and participation interact warrants attention in this field. Previous literature has yet to explore links between communication disability and social citizenship in dementia care. Method This is a viewpoint article. A search was performed on three literature databases, followed by a snowball technique, in order to identify relevant literature on social citizenship. Results Integrating a social citizenship–based understanding of participation in dementia would provide a framework for communication disorders researchers to examine systematic communicatively disabling conditions in communities and societies. Conclusions It is highlighted that a deeper understanding is needed of how stigmatization of both communication disability and dementia might interact to prevent the active participation of individuals 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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".