"Women who made it 'home'": an exploratory study of the experiences of cognitively well women living in long-term care with cognitively impaired older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The meaning of ‘home’ for older adults in long-term care (LTC) settings is not well understood. Furthermore, how living with cognitively impaired older adults may affect the meaning of ‘home’ is under researched. The goal of this study was to explore how living with cognitively impaired older adults affects the meaning of ‘home’ for cognitively well female older adults residing in LTC. A convenience sample of eleven female cognitively well older adults was selected from four LTC settings in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The eleven women were interviewed to determine their meaning of ‘home’ prior to and following placement in the LTC setting. Two key questions posed to the women were, “Do you consider (name of LTC setting) to be ‘home’?” and “How does living with confused people affect the meaning of home?” Eight of the women considered the LTC setting where they reside to be ‘home’. Nine of the women indicated that living with cognitively impaired older adults does not affect their meaning of ‘home’. These findings suggest two things. First, that most cognitively well female older adults create a new ‘home’ for themselves when they move to the LTC setting. Second, that many cognitively well female older adults demonstrate compassion and acceptance of living with fellow residents who have cognitive impairment and may exhibit disruptive behaviours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".