Reimagining care: images of aging and creativity in House Calls and Year at Sherbrooke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at the relationship between the esthetic and documentary commentaries offered by two National Film Board of Canada (NFB) productions, chosen because they use the documentary form to interpret aging and care in Canada for Canadians, offering a Canadian example of an issue that is of international importance. The first film, House Calls (Ian McLeod 2004), follows the work of Mark Nowaczynski, a physician who photographs his elderly patients to illustrate their dignity amidst what he perceives to be their fragility and vulnerability. The second, A Year at Sherbrooke (Thomas Hale 2009), follows artists Thelma Pepper and Jeff Nachtigall who work with residents of a Saskatoon long-term care facility - Pepper continues her longer term practice of photographing the residents and Nachtigall takes on a new role of artist-in-residence in which he mentors them in their own creative development. Analyzing the role of photography in each film, the article shows that, together, the films demonstrate that images of aging beyond mere decline may play a role in reimagining how care for older adults takes place.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".