MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200388854 · doi:10.1177/09610006211065170

Library services enriching community engagement for dementia care: The Tales & Travels Program at a Canadian Public Library as a case study

2021· article· en· W4200388854 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jiamin Dai, Joan C. Bartlett, Karyn Moffatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Librarianship and Information Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNetworks of Centres of Excellence of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer SocietyFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesAGE-WELL
KeywordsDementiaLibrary scienceSociologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing dementia-friendly library services are contributing to community-based dementia care. Emerging community programs in libraries and museums provide notable opportunities for promoting engagement and inclusivity, but these programs have yet to receive in-depth assessments and analyses to guide future research and practice. This paper presents a case study examining a social and storytelling program for people with dementia run by a Canadian public library. It investigates two research questions: How can public library programs contribute to community-based dementia care? And what are public libraries' strengths and challenges in running programs for people with dementia? The study involves participant observations of the program and semi-structured interviews with people with dementia, caregivers, and program facilitators (librarians and Alzheimer Society coordinators). Through thematic analysis of fieldnotes and transcripts, the study reveals how this inclusive platform supports engagement, fosters relationships, helps caregivers, and reaches broader communities. This research further uncovers the librarians' diversified roles as demonstrated through their collaboration with professionals, preparation and research, and facilitation of the sessions. This paper advances librarianship research on enriching community-based dementia care, including furthering inclusivity and engagement and extending accessible library services. By analyzing library programming for the dementia community and assessing its strengths and challenges, the paper highlights librarians' awareness of the community's evolving needs and their collaboration with other professionals. It offers practical insights on useful resources and emerging best practices that will hopefully inspire other initiatives in which information professionals can help improve the well-being of vulnerable populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0340.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Librarianship and Information ScienceSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207