MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7104102656 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/n5d6q

Social Isolation in Racialized and Ethnic Minority Older Adults with Dementia in Canada: A Scoping Review

2025· other· W7104102656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial isolationEthnic groupDementiaGrey literatureRacializationPopulationIsolation (microbiology)Social exclusionInclusion (mineral)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social isolation is a growing public health concern for older adults, with a majority of older adults reporting loneliness. It is also a risk factor for dementia. People living with dementia, in contrast to the general population, face additional barriers that exacerbate existing social isolation. This scoping review will fill research gaps by discussing the unique, intersectional experiences of racialized ethnic minority Canadians, as most reviews on social isolation focus on the general population of Canadians with dementia, and there is a current lack of resources for the specific needs of racially diverse older adults living with dementia in Canada. The objective of this scoping review is to examine what is in the existing literature about the connection between racialization or ethnicity and social isolation among older adults living with dementia in Canada. This scoping review will use Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) methodological framework and Tricco et al.’s (2018) PRISMA-ScR checklist. Seven databases will be searched: CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Grey literature from prominent Canadian sources, such as the Alzheimer Society of Canada and the National Institute on Ageing, will be collected. The inclusion criteria are: any dementia, Canadian context, conjoint analysis of social isolation and race or culture, discussion on older adults, English language, and published at any time. Data will be screened with Covidence, and manually extracted and thematically analyzed. Ethics approval is not necessary as only existing published literature will be used. This study will be disseminated through open-access repositories, such as Open Science Framework.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.340 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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 venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207