The day program multiple: Noncoherence and ontological politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, day programs are increasingly proposed in policy as one way to address the support needs of people living at home with dementia and their families. Day programs represent a kind of space that can meet multiple interests and ideologies concerned with sustaining care at home for people living with dementia. In this paper, we draw on findings from an ethnographic study of how day programs work as care in the community for people living with dementia to argue that day programs' ontological status in research as a "simple location" of care contributes to the ambiguous outcomes and limited evidence available for improving their design and delivery. Using one program as an illustrative case, we demonstrate the multiplicity of a day program and the ontological politics through which the potentialities for care emerge. Robert Cooper's proximal analysis of organizing's and Annemarie Mol's work on ontological politics inform this analysis. Of note in this analysis are the different enactments of a day program and their modes of coordination. We show when these enactments hang together well and when they do not and consider the effects of these politics for care. Of particular concern is how some versions of a day program are easily displaced by the interests of administrative versions and managerial logics. We argue for approaches to research and planning that acknowledge the "day program multiple" and precarious nature of 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 | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".