Implications for social and health care practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction New ideas about social citizenship and dementia demand new forms of practice. In the previous chapter we drew on ideas associated with social constructionism to highlight the importance of considering how language is used to create understandings and to inform practice. We suggest that attending to the use of language is an important way for tuning into oppressive ideas and reshaping how we think about dementia in a way that is more congruent with a social citizenship lens. We argue that critical self-reflection is the first step towards a social citizenship approach to practice, and that attention to language provides an important entry point for this reflexive practice. The purpose of this chapter is to move beyond thinking and begin to envision the doing of practice that is grounded in the ideas of a critical social citizenship approach. Specifically, we draw on the literature associated with critical1 social and health care practice to examine how professional practice in the field of dementia can be reshaped to reflect a social citizenship approach. We will pay particular attention to direct, case-based practice, recognising that this is where the majority of those who have professional responsibility for supporting people with dementia work. Simultaneously, however, we will be trying to begin to break down the artificial dichotomy between case-based practice (often positioned as micro level practice) and more macro level practices such as community and social development. This chapter is organised into two sections. The first clarifies and examines the general principles for a social citizenship approach to practice. The starting point and basis for discussion is the conceptual framework advanced in Chapter Three. Using this framework, four principles are outlined to help provide the bridge between concept and practice. The second section highlights three strategic approaches for realising these principles. Combined, the goal of the chapter is to broaden the debate around dementia practice by putting forward a value-based approach to practice that is more explicitly political and congruent with social citizenship.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.004 |
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".