MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992031927

Investigation of Activity Performance of Primer Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia

2015· article· en· W6992031927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaRecreationProductivityActivities of daily livingGeriatricsNursing homesFamily caregiversUnit (ring theory)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study was designed to examine the change of activity performance areas due to being primer family caregiver of a geriatric individual with dementia from occupational therapy perspective. Materials and Method: This study was performed in Hacettepe University Geriatrics Unit between January 2014 and April 2014 on caregivers of geriatric individuals with and without dementia who live at home. Caregivers (n:20) of individuals with dementia as the study group and without damentia (n:30) as the control group were selected by simple random sampling method. Socio-demographic characteristics questionnaire and Canada Activity Performance Measurement was used. Results: Study group’s mean age was 59.8 ±8.69 years, while 56.13 ±5.06 years in control group. Problems experienced in study group in recreational activities were taking time for own (35%), going doctor (25%), shopping (20%), walking (10%) and cooking (5%) in productivity area while spending time with children (30%), looking grandchildren (13.3%), spending time with friends (10%) in recreational area; and cooking (10%) in productivity area of control group. Self-care activities were the common problem performance area. conclusion: Client-centered occupational therapy programmes which include activity participation to self care, productivity and recreational activites is important to reduce the negative influences of being a caregiver of an individual with dementia

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.332
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.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDergiPark (Istanbul University)Same topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207