Contextual Action Theory in Nursing Home Settings: A Conceptual Framework for Considering the Active Role of Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing home (NH) residents are often considered passive recipients of care with a limited role in shaping their experience. This perspective is often reproduced in NH research, which restricts resident participation, thereby upholding ageist views that cause discrimination of older adults living in NH settings. In this article, we propose using Contextual Action Theory (CAT) as a conceptual framework for exploring NH experiences in a way that incorporates the active role of residents. CAT supports the active role of NH residents by emphasizing the capabilities of human beings to form preferences and act on those preferences, without assumptions of rationality. The emphasis on human action allows researchers to consider NH experiences as co-constructed between residents, care providers, and family members, which means placing an emphasis on the actions and goals of NH residents, no matter their cognitive or physical impairments. CAT also supports personhood and social citizenship concerns in NH research, by acknowledging the differing preferences and thereby differing experiences of NH care by individual residents. We argue that CAT should be considered a useful framework for putting residents in the center of NH research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".