Nurturing Meaningful Intergenerational Social Engagements to Support Healthy Brain Aging for Anishinaabe Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in Indigenous populations across Canada is of rising concern, as prevalence rates continue to exceed those of non-Indigenous populations. The Intergenerativity Model, guided by Indigenous Ways of Knowing, nurtures a psychosocial approach to promoting healthy brain aging and quality of life. Community-based participatory action methods led by interviews, focus groups, and program observations aid in identifying the barriers to and facilitators of success for intergenerational social engagements in the Anishinaabe community of Wiikwemkoong in northwestern Ontario. A qualitative thematic analysis guides future recommendations for programming opportunities that foster traditional roles of older First Nation adults and support intergenerational relationships. The results of this project elicit culturally appropriate recommendations for community-driven supports that address healthy brain aging. These outcomes are relevant to other Indigenous communities as the framework for determining that culturally appropriate health supports can be adapted to the unique context of many communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".