A roadmap of noninstitutional living options for people with dementia: “Don’t fence me in.”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians overwhelmingly do not want to live in long-term-care (LTC) facilities when they age; yet many end up there for lack of homecare, because family caregivers burn out, or because they and their professional advisors are unaware of alternatives to institutions. Not only is institutional dementia care problem-driven, it segregates disabled people, thereby abrogating human rights. Because systemic ageism and ableism cloud elder care, institutions remain the default option for Canadians with dementia. Yet, decades of deinstitutionalization enabled younger disabled Canadians to live in the community with supports. Why not elders? We describe a plethora of noninstitutional dementia-care alternatives. We then present a roadmap for considering all relevant care options in service plans, one that incorporates supported decision-making by people with dementia. We propose a paradigm shift in how Canada serves its elder citizens—not just the current generation, but those to come, including ourselves.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".