Building design for couple relationship maintenance in congregate dementia care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: The main objectives of this article are to consider the relationships among couples, individuals, facility caregivers, and architectural design through 2 case studies that may influence maintaining couple relationships and the respective individuals’ quality of life. Methods: A phenomenological approach is taken through the case studies where the lived experiences of 2 couples—where each couple has one individual with and another without dementia—live in 2 different buildings. Multiple data collection methods included in-depth analysis of the building and grounds, interviews with residents and family members as well as facility caregivers and participant observations. Results: Both building designs featured suites with multiple rooms, independent living suites, and dementia care units to maintain couple-based routines as well as individuals’ needs. Having one suite located far away from the unit’s entrance hindered the spouse without dementia from maintaining connections outside the unit. Conclusions: The article highlights how building design can support as well as hinder the couple’s relationship maintenance and the individuals’ quality of life. We recommend considering building design opportunities for residents to maintain couple-based daily routines and for spousal residents to connect with the world outside the dementia care unit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".