How much do library students know about dementia? Findings from a quantitative study using the Alzheimer’s Disease Knowledge Scale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the study presented in the paper is to assess the knowledge about Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), among library and information science students in Croatia. Understanding how much future librarians know about dementia is the first step towards providing them with relevant educational intervention which will equip them with required knowledge to develop dementia-friendly library services in a society which is increasingly affected by dementia. A total of 183 students participated in the study which used Alzheimer’s Disease Knowledge Scale (ADKS), a validated instrument that measures what people know about AD using a 30-item questionnaire across seven knowledge domains: risk factors, symptoms, assessment and diagnosis, course of the disease, life impact, treatment, and management, and caregiving. The collected data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics and a parametric test ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="t" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>t</mml:mi> </mml:math> -test). Findings show that respondents have poor AD knowledge. Only 35.78% questions were answered correctly and the mean knowledge score was 10.76. The findings revealed that participants with previous exposure to the disease have significantly better knowledge ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="P=" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mi/> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> 0.003).
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it