Mealtimes as Active Processes in long-term care facilities, A Resident Centered Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis initiates Canadian research into mealtime dependency of people with dementia living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), using a Grounded Theory approach. Mealtime observations (n = 180) of residents with dementia (n = 20) in Special Care Units, plus in-depth interviews with clinical dietitians (n = 8), registered nursing staff (n = 5) and health care aides (n = 18) working in LTCFs were completed. The Constant Comparison method was used to analyze and conceptualize the data. A substantive theory entitled "Mealtimes as Active Processes in LTCFs: A Resident Centered Model" emerged with three key themes. (1) Each mealtime is a unique process embedded within a LTCF's environment. (2) Residents are central to the mealtime process through their actions (i.e. arriving, eating, waiting, socializing, leaving and miscellaneous distracted activities). (3) Internal (i.e. residents' characteristics) and external (i.e. co-resident, direct care-giving, indirect care-giving, administrative and governmental activities) influences affect residents' actions at mealtimes. In conclusion, optimal mealtime experiences for residents require comprehensive, inter-disciplinary interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".