MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411107093 · doi:10.3389/frdem.2025.1565277

Designing an overview Theory of Change for a multi-component support community for people affected by rare dementia

2025· article· en· W4411107093 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary Pat Sullivan, Paul M. Camic, Emma Harding, Joshua Stott, Gill Windle, Ian Davies‐Abbott, Sebastian J. Crutch

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilBangor UniversityUniversity College LondonUK Research and InnovationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNipissing University
KeywordsDementiaComponent (thermodynamics)PsychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There is growing awareness of people living with diverse dementia syndromes, many of whom are younger in age, with distinct support needs. Planning for increasing numbers of people living with dementia and subsequent models of support has largely overlooked this population. To address this gap, the aim was to design a Theory of Change for multi-component rare dementia support. Methods: Intervention development frameworks underpinned the construction of a Theory of Change informed by research evidence on rare dementia support and an iterative consultation process with people with lived experience, researchers, educators and health and social care practitioners. Results: The Theory of Change illustrates pathways to activities for continuous and tailored support solutions, education and knowledge production. Characteristic features include relationship, connection and continuity for people with lived experience, training and networking for professionals, and relational support with a commitment to ongoing learning for the rare dementia support team. Conclusion: The Theory of Change is positioned to flexibly support people affected by rare dementia, strengthen capacity within all sectors, improve service quality whilst maintaining a commitment to knowledge production and mobilization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207