Making space at the table: Engaging participation of people with dementia in community development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Building Capacity Project is an asset-based community development initiative that aims to reduce stigma and promote social inclusion for people with dementia. Using a community-based participatory approach, we conducted research to examine the relational patterns and participatory practices within and across project sites in two different regions of Canada (Vancouver and Thunder Bay). METHODS: Five focus groups and five individual interviews were conducted with team members and community partners (n = 29) and analysed for themes. RESULTS: The overarching theme of Making Space at the Table explains how the participation of people with dementia has served both as a value and a practice shaping the relational work throughout the project. Three sub-themes include: Maintaining a common foundation; Creating communication pathways; and Fostering personal connections. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these findings show how community development can support the meaningful participation of people with dementia in their communities through processes of collaboration that focus on individual and collective strengths, that allow time for the work to unfold, and for building relationships that foster trust and respect for diversity.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".