MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1745024435 · doi:10.3233/wor-2012-1236

Passion in the performing arts: Clarifying active occupational participation

2012· article· en· W1745024435 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel D. Mullen, Jane A. Davis, Helene J. Polatajko

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionEnablingThe artsConstructivist grounded theoryPerforming artsPsychologyEveryday lifeSocial psychologySociologyQualitative researchGrounded theorySocial sciencePolitical scienceVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Active participation in daily occupations is a vital part of everyday life, social participation and healthy life long human development; however, enablers of active participation are not well understood. Passion, a strong tendency towards an activity that a person finds meaningful and spends a lot of time doing, is a potential enabler. Accordingly, it is important to understand how an individual's passion for a specific occupation plays out across the occupational life course. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience of passion across the life course of older adults involved in the performing arts. PARTICIPANTS: Seven older adults involved in, or retired from, the performing arts, who consider themselves passionate about their occupation. METHODS: A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to explore, through interviews with older adults, passion for performing arts across the life course. RESULTS: Emerging themes supported development of an initial theoretical framework explicating active participation and passion. It centers on passion as an enabler of occupational participation through different modes, and suggests barriers to that enablement process. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that passion has an important role in continued active participation in an occupation; however, barriers, such as social and financial, can derail the pursuit of a passionate occupation.

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)0.002
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207