Pursuing pathways to care: dementia and aging in Indigenous communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pursuing pathways to care is critical in the movement towards genuinely addressing the health status, and its relationship to dementia amongst Indigenous older adults in their communities. The proportion of Indigenous older adults who are above 65 years of age continues to rise despite the numbers being lower than for their non-Indigenous counterparts. In 2016, the population Indigenous older adults above 65 was 7.3% compared to 4.6% in 2006, and this is expected to double by 2036 (Statistics Canada, 2017). Along with an aging population, there is also an increase in the rates of dementia among Indigenous Peoples in Canada (Jacklin et al, 2013). Dementia can represent a concern for families, preventing individuals from aging in place and causing distress to individuals and their caregivers. People living with dementia in rural communities experience a dearth of dementia care and services (Jacklin and Warry, 2012). The lack of access to dementia services and specialists in rural communities further exacerbates families’ ability to care for their loved ones at home. Understanding the needs of individuals living with dementia, their families, and culturally safe dementia services can be explored through community-based research. A new aspect of dementia care in the twenty-first century is the introduction of technology, which can now be used for anything from remote access to medical appointments to aiding the at-home continuing care of patients. However, many older adults, especially Indigenous older adults living in rural or remote communities, lack the skills and infrastructure to access this technology. This chapter presents an examination of dementia among Indigenous peoples, including dementia care, and rural access to care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".