MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Transitions to Long-Term Care for People Living with Dementia: Social Death and Social (Dis) Connections

2025· preprint· en· W4413184395 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Veronika Williams, Mary Pat Sullivan, Christina Victor

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNipissing University
KeywordsDementiaTerm (time)Long-term careSocial careGerontologyPsychologySociologyMedicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is the most common cause for long-term care placement for people over the age of 65 years. The decision and the transition are often very difficult for families and the type and timing of effective support not well understood. As part of a study exploring dyadic experiences of social connection and living with dementia, we conducted virtual in-depth interviews with a sample of spouses (N=5) who had identified their partner’s move to a nursing home as particularly distressing. Using thematic analysis, we identified that the transition process involved a particular disruption for dyad’s social health although rarely a consideration in planning or support provision. For the person living with dementia, the unacknowledged loss of their social world reinforced their social death. Their grieving partner was explicitly and implicitly encouraged to recover a new social world as a means of healing from the loss. Our findings reinforce the need for evidence-informed support during the transition to long-term care for someone living with dementia and their partner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→