Bibliographic record
Abstract
This section of the book focuses on research evidence from Canada, Austria and Ireland. However, the chapters in section 3 of this book are also informed by research evidence in relation to practice innovations. Research can throw light on areas that require policy support and practice developments to improve the lives of those with dementia. Research also often focuses on neglected areas of policy and practice concern, and rural dementia care has characteristically been a relatively neglected area for both rurality researchers and dementia researchers. As such this section provides a showcase for the models of care that have been developed in one area of Canada and one area of Austria that provide an evidence base to shape and inform practice developments and also to influence policy. The contribution from our Irish authors in this section demonstrates the need to collate evidence that illuminates policy and practice differences within a country and how this may lead to social exclusion and as such impacts on the lived experience of dementia. Research is a vital component of a change agenda, and the chapters in this section clearly demonstrate this.
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 | 0.061 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.200 | 0.063 |
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".