MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390201122 · doi:10.1002/alz.072537

A Living Lab in the Quebec’s Homes for older adults with a neurocognitive disorder: aiming to improve the personalization of long‐term care and the self‐determination of residents and their relatives

2023· article· en· W4390201122 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carol Hudon, Alexandra Ribon‐Demars, Charles Sèbiyo Batcho, Nouha Ben Gaied, Andréanne K. Blanchette, François V. Bolduc, Caroline Charest, Nancy Côté, Olivier Collomb‐d'Eyrames, Simon Duchesne, Isabelle Feillou, Élise Fortin, Caroline Gagnon, Andrée Giguère, Anik Giguère, Line Guénette, M. Hardy, Maude Laberge, Marie‐Ève Labonté, Louise Langevin, J Lapierre, Joël Macoir, Bradford J. McFadyen, Pierre‐Olivier Méthot, Laura Monetta, Anne‐Sophie Morisset, Valerie Peters, Émilie Raymond, Francois Routier, Sonia Singamalum, Pascal Tanguay, Philippe Voyer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecQuadrise Canada Corporation (Canada)Institut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité LavalAlzheimer Society of CanadaCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationContext (archaeology)Construct (python library)AutonomySustainabilityKnowledge managementPsychologyIndependent livingWork (physics)SociologyPublic relationsMedical educationBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceGerontologyPolitical scienceMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The “ Quebec’s Homes for Older Adults with a Neurocognitive Disorder ” (QHOA) model aims to improve the quality of residential and long‐term care environments for people losing their autonomy. Considering the major paradigm shift behind the QHOA philosophy, it seemed timely to co‐construct a Living Lab‐type structural organisation whose main mission will be to contribute to the sustainability of the new model. Objectives Since 2021, we have been co‐constructing links between scientists, decision‐makers, staff (carers, cooks, housekeepers, etc.), QHOA stakeholders and, above all, the community and its seniors. Our structure is a Living Lab and the main objective is to cyclically and participatively co‐construct a set of solutions applicable to QHOAs. Our work will encourage the design and development of sustainable solutions by considering human (e.g., self‐determination, personalization of care), environmental (e.g., layout and design, camouflage strategies), technological (e.g., sensors, cameras, connected watches and scales, artificial intelligence, software for care and medication), work organization, and continuous training of stakeholders. Results The co‐construction process involved more than 40 researchers, clinicians, decision‐makers, or stakeholders. We have all been able to delineate the structure of the Living Lab and how knowledge will be disseminated, rallied, and promoted. This presentation will resume the main steps (including successes and challenges) of our work. Implications A Living Lab is a place for collaboration, exchange, and co‐creation. The actors in the field have the most relevant knowledge of the living context in which the projects will be deployed. Our intersectoral team (20 fields of expertise) will provide the scientific knowledge to ensure the sustainability and ongoing development of the QHOA model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207