MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283739886 · doi:10.1177/14713012221111014

Conceptualizing citizenship in dementia: A scoping review of the literature

2022· review· en· W4283739886 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah O’Connor, Mariko Sakamoto, Kishore Seetharaman, Habib Chaudhury, Alison Phinney

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipDementiaAutonomyContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)SociologyThematic analysisPsychologyPoliticsPolitical scienceQualitative researchSocial scienceMedicineDiseaseLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citizenship has provided an important conceptual framework in dementia research and practice over the past fifteen years. To date, there has been no attempt to synthesize the multiple perspectives that have arisen in this literature. The purpose of this paper is to explore, reflect on, and contrast, the key concepts and trends in the citizenship discourse as it relates to people with dementia. Using a scoping review methodology, forty-nine articles were identified for review. Despite the use of different descriptors, thematic analysis revealed four core themes underpinning citizenship discourse: 1) the relationality of citizenship; 2) facilitated agency and autonomy; 3) attention to stigma, discrimination and exclusion; and 4) recognition of the possibilities of identity and growth. Overall, this scoping review found a major emphasis on expanding definitions of agency and autonomy to render citizenship unconditional and inclusive of the diverse life experiences of people living with dementia. Notably, there is recognition that a more intersectional lens for embedding the subjective experience within a broader socio-political context is needed. Whilst the adoption of a citizenship lens in dementia research and practice has had real-world implications for policy and research, its exploration and use continue to be led by academics, highlighting the importance that future research involve input form people with dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207