Empowering younger residents living in long-term care homes as co-researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We draw on our research, our lived experiences of disability and the grounded expertise of disabled persons living in long-term care (LTC) homes as co-researchers, to illustrate the value of disability-led participatory research. Our approach to a co-designed collaborative project on young adults living in LTC highlights the benefits of research that centers the lived realities of disabled people. Points of interestResearch and knowledge about disabled people living in long-term care (LTC) homes routinely excludes the perspectives of the people who live there; this is especially true for younger residents living in LTC.This article shares information about a study on promising approaches to residential LTC for people under 65 years of age that was co-led with care home resident researchers.The study design provided opportunities and supports to encourage meaningful engagement, such as training and access to research assistants.Resident co-researchers brought lived expertise and experiential insights that enriched the research process and knowledge produced, and that supported them in their own disability advocacy work.Inequities persist when budgets fail to consider and address barriers to residents’ full participation in all aspects of the research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".