A Community of Practice on Environmental Design for Long-Term Care Residents with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of communities of practice (CoP) to support the application of knowledge in improved geriatric care practice is not widely understood. This case study's aim was to gain a deeper understanding of the knowledge-to-action (KTA) processes of a CoP focused on environmental design, to improve how persons with dementia find their way around in long-term care (LTC) homes. Qualitative data were collected (key informant interviews, observations, and document review), and analysed using emergent coding. CoP members contributed extensive knowledge to the KTA process characterized by the following themes: team dynamics, employing a structured process, technology use, varied forms of knowledge, and a clear initiative. The study's CoP effectively synthesized and translated knowledge into practical tools to inform changes in practice, programs, and policy on dementia care. More research is needed on how to involve patients and caregivers in the KTA processes, and to ensure that practical application of knowledge has financial and policy support.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".