Tailored, Community-Based Programs for People Living With Dementia and Their Family Caregiver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People living with dementia (PLWD) have voiced a desire to remain in their home environment as long as possible; unfortunately, there is limited integrated person-and family-centered community support. To examine the need for tailored supports for PLWD and their family caregivers (caregiving dyad), a meeting was conducted in Spring 2020. Thirty key provincial stakeholders with diversity in geographic location, employer and/or organization, range of roles, and family representatives participated in the meeting. Stakeholders identified a series of gaps, including: (a) systemic gaps; (b) gaps between communities of practice; (c) underserved populations; (d) program content and delivery gaps; and (e) PLWD and family caregiver support gaps. With input from stakeholders, we highlighted the need for consistent resources for the caregiving dyad that are flexible, timely, and accessible, which are embedded in the community and led by qualified and trained staff. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48 (4), 26–32.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".