MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001165410 · doi:10.1177/1471301219898350

Development and validation of a conceptual model and strategy adoption guidelines for persons with dementia at risk of getting lost

2020· article· en· W3001165410 on OpenAlexafffund
NA Neubauer, L Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
FundersAGE-WELL
KeywordsTerminologyDementiaConceptual modelPsychologyGuidelineKnowledge managementFace validityFocus groupWork (physics)Process managementManagement scienceApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceBusinessClinical psychologyPsychometricsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various solutions are available to address critical wandering; however, no guideline exists to allow for the successful adoption of these strategies. This study developed and validated a conceptual model and series of guidelines to facilitate choice of wander-management strategies. Face and content validity of the model and guidelines were assessed through an online and paper survey, individual interviews and focus groups across stakeholders. Directed content analysis was performed. Overall impression of the conceptual model and guidelines was positive. Valued features included the guidelines' ability to help users in choosing proactive wander-management strategies. Suggested changes included revisions in terminology and more factors and strategies to be added to the model and guidelines. This work is being disseminated and used by persons with dementia, caregivers, health practitioners and community service providers to identify strategies to mitigate the risks associated with critical wandering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207