Disentangling Responsibility: Perspectives on Dementia Prevention From Stakeholders in Canada, Germany and Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia prevention has become a priority in medical research and public health. Various medical, social and environmental risk factors have been identified; however, medical studies, media discourses and health policies predominantly centre on individual-level prevention and promote personal responsibility for maintaining cognitive health. This emphasis on individual preventive efforts faces increasing criticism for being ethically problematic, medically insufficient and reflective of a neoliberal responsibilisation of (cognitive) ageing. Our study, based on 60 semi-structured qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in dementia research, care and health policy from Canada, Germany and Switzerland, situates the preventive turn within contemporary ageing cultures and welfare policies. By examining the epistemic and normative arguments underlying current debates on dementia prevention, we illustrate how stakeholders justify both personal and governmental responsibilities in preventing dementia. Although managing and mitigating various risk factors throughout life is often framed as a matter of personal responsibility, many stakeholders advocate combining individual-level prevention with population-level efforts to address social inequalities that affect the risk of developing dementia. Drawing on the interview study, we highlight the importance of recognising the political and normative foundations and implications of dementia prevention strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".