Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Economic Forum has called dementia one of the biggest global health crises of the 21 st century. In this paper, I make the case that unpaid caregiving by family or close others of persons living with dementia should be a matter of public health. Shaji and Reddy proposed this in 2012 in the context of dementia care in India. They explicitly acknowledge the influence of Talley and Crews’ 2007 article on caregiving as an emerging public health concern. However, they narrow their proposal to caregiving for persons living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which I take to be an important first step in building an argument for putting caregiving more firmly on a public health agenda. In order to support my claim, first, I establish that caregiving is a social determinant of health. Second, I counter objections to the addition of caregiving for persons living with ADRD to a public health agenda, as it would lead to public health mission creep. I then argue that a broad understanding of public health can be inclusive of this type caregiving and is preferable as it highlights an issue of health equity, the gendered nature of caregiving. Finally, I make the case that a definition of public health inclusive of the social determinants of health and caregiving is more adequately suited to address the health consequences of the current changing demographic patterns. My argument adds support to writings on migration calling for broadening the scope of public health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".