Early stage alzheimer's disease support and self-advocacy groups: empowerment within a disempowering disease process?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, individuals with cognitive problems such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), and other forms of dementia, have had little say in determining the course of their own lives. Assumptions have been made by professional caregivers, family, friends, and government agencies (such as those responsible for social and health services), that people with AD, even in the early stages, are incapable of enunciating their own concerns and speaking on their own behalf But times are changing and a growing number of people with dementia are developing organizational forums that will allow their voices to be heard. This project examines the development process of one such forum - support and self-help groups. The project is set within an emancipatory framework and is undertaken in the hopes that it will contribute to the empowerment and self-determination of persons with AD. The development process of a new support and self-advocacy group for people with early stage AD, established in Prince George in September 1999, is examined utilizing a case study format. A review of the literature relating to the formation of support and self-help groups for persons with cognitive problems both in Canada and internationally is presented, along with a case description of the formative months of the Prince George group (for which the author is a co-facilitator). A critical, retrospective case analysis of the group's development process is undertaken. Major themes, including new ageism, empowerment, group theory, practice challenges and policy issues, are identified and examined. A comparative analysis of the Prince George group and other early stage support groups (as presented in the literature review) suggests that early stage supports groups can play a positive role in facilitating the empowerment of persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".