MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416754442 · doi:10.36368/jcsh.v2i2.1218

Reminiscing together – Study design of a community based participatory dementia care intervention in two Inuit communities in Greenland

2025· article· en· W4416754442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kamilla Nørtoft, Sidse Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of community systems for health / · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReminiscenceDementiaContext (archaeology)Participatory action researchParticipant observationEthnographyIntervention (counseling)Citizen journalismPhoto elicitationMultidisciplinary approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This article outlines the study design for the research and development project “Reminiscing together – care development for people with dementia in Greenland”. Longevity is increasing in the world, including Greenland, and the increase in the number of older people brings with it an increase in the number of people living with dementia. Only few materials and care methods are adjusted to or developed in the Greenlandic Inuit context and knowledge about the disease is scarce. In this study we will investigate images of ageing among care workers and how these images affect the day-to-day care work in two nursing homes in Qeqqata municipality. Methods: We will co-design designated spaces for reminiscence activities for residents in nursing homes and co-create smaller reminiscence actions to be integrated into daily care work. Theoretically we draw on the concepts of Identity and identification from sociology, Reminiscence as practiced cultural history from ethnology and The older person as ‘the other’ inspired by postcolonial feminist theory. Methodologically we will apply ethnographic fieldwork methods including participant observation, in-depth interviews and sharing circles, design thinking and co-design workshops as well as implementation and monitoring tools from promising practices. Dissemination: The results of this multidisciplinary community based participatory project will be disseminated widely in research and practice through articles, guidelines and instructional videos.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 venueJournal of community systems for health /Same topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207