MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389154303 · doi:10.1097/nr9.0000000000000044

Advancing home-like environments for memory care residents within nursing homes

2023· article· en· W4389154303 on OpenAlexaffabout
Megan Strickfaden, Orsolya Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueInterdisciplinary Nursing Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceObject (grammar)PsychologyLimitingComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: This article reports on 5 specialized memory care environments within nursing homes in Canada through the theory of affordances with the aim of understanding the layered implications of affordances on memory care residents by curating objects within and configuring or designing spatial environments. Methods: A spatial/object-centric approach was taken by using a detailed analysis framework based on a robust interpretation of the theory of affordances and well-known elements, principles, and physical/construction properties of interior and spatial design. A web content analysis method, using hundreds of photographs, drawings, and textual information belonging to 5 nursing homes posted on websites and on social media, was used. Results: The results include a detailed analysis framework informed by affordance theory and 3 themes that reveal details about the designed environments. The 3 themes are: (1) how contextual factors of affordances of place and care played out, (2) how physical, cultural, and semantic affordances aided or detracted from memory care, and (3) how home-like environments with public, semiprivate, and private spaces involved multiple affordances and constraints that provided multisensory clues towards supporting and/or limiting memory care residents’ possible actions. Conclusions: We conclude that although affordances can open a range of possible actions, they are not ideal for configuring or designing home-like environments, and it is necessary for memory care residents to be presented with constraints that limit alternatives and misaffordances. This article provides evidence about how affordances and constraints are (and could be) intentionally embedded in home-like memory care environments in nursing homes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.378
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterdisciplinary Nursing ResearchSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207