Achieving the Goals of Dementia Plans: A Review of Evidence-Informed Implementation Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's recent passage of Bill C-233, an Act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, suggests that a federal dementia plan may soon be established. Bill C-233 identified five priorities for dementia care reform: (1) developing national objectives, (2) encouraging investment in research, (3) coordinating with international bodies (e.g., WHO), (4) assisting provinces with the development and dissemination of diagnostic treatment guidelines and best practices for dementia care management; and (5) making recommendations for standards of care. A National Dementia Conference (PHAC 2018) and a report conducted by the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS 2019) were organized in response to Bill C-233. Both the conference and report allowed for diverse stakeholders to share perspectives on dementia care and support, research and public education. They also suggested that implementing a dementia strategy is easier said than done. Accordingly, the CAHS recommended that evidence-informed implementation strategies be considered to achieve stated goals of dementia care reform (CAHS 2019). To respond to this final recommendation -and to support the
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".