METHODOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL REFLECTIONS FROM RESEARCH ON NEIGHBOURHOOD-BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND DEMENTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neighbourhood is widely regarded as a setting that affords emotional and practical support and opportunities to maintain community-based activities and social participation for people living with dementia (PLWD). Creating a supportive neighbourhood built environment that facilitates outdoor mobility, wayfinding, and access to community destinations is key to making our communities dementia-inclusive. Research on the built environment and dementia-inclusive planning is relatively sparse in the broader research domain of neighbourhoods and dementia. Further, how PLWD perceive, interpret, and interact with the neighbourhood built environment is not adequately understood. Although it is acknowledged that PLWD should be more meaningfully included and engaged in research in this area, there is a lack of guidance on methodological and ethical considerations necessary to explore people-place relations in the neighbourhood built environment through the lens of the lived experience of PLWD. To address this gap, our paper draws from the Dementia-inclusive Streets and Community Access, Participation, and Engagement (DemSCAPE) study to highlight reflections on conducting walk-along interviews, embodied videography, photo documentation, semi-structured sit-down interviews, and visual elicitation to explore the influence of the neighbourhood built environment on the outdoor walking experience of PLWD. We discuss 1) methodological strengths, including the triangulated strategy of capturing experiential data in-situ in real time and in retrospect, and flexibly working around memory and communication-related challenges experienced by PLWD, 2) ethical challenges and measures for mitigation, 3) logistical difficulties in undertaking complex fieldwork with PLWD, limitations of the research methods, and potential alternative methods to explore in future research.
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 | 0.218 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".