Living with dementia: Exploring the intersections of culture, race, and dementia, stigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research documents the presence of stigma and discrimination as key components in the lived experience of dementia. However, to date, there is limited understanding regarding how social location, particularly as it relates to culture and race, may shape this experience of stigma and discrimination. In this qualitative exploratory study, personal interviews were held with ten Chinese Canadians living with dementia focused on better understanding how culture, race, and dementia stigma influence their experiences. From the onset, themes related to stigma and discrimination were woven into the participants' stories about living with dementia. Consistent with other research, all participants described an increased sense of vulnerability and invisibility related to how both they and others responded to their diagnosis of dementia. Participants also provided examples of how this experience of stigma was compounded by culture, race, and immigration status. Importantly, these acts of stigma and discrimination were both externally and internally imposed, resulting in feelings of lack of safety and insecurity. This research draws attention to the increased vulnerability that accompanies a diagnosis of dementia and illustrates how this may be heightened by one's culture and racism.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".