MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118890224 · doi:10.1177/1049732307302838

Expressions of Personhood in Alzheimer's Disease: An Evaluation of Research-Based Theatre as a Pedagogical Tool

2007· article· en· W2118890224 on OpenAlexaff
Pia Kontos, Gary Naglie

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodFocus groupDramaDisseminationEthnographyQualitative researchPerceptionAdaptation (eye)PsychologySociologyPedagogySocial scienceEpistemologyAnthropologyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of scholars are turning to dramatic performance as an innovative approach to disseminating the results of qualitative research. With an interest in this aesthetic practice, the authors transformed ethnographic research on personhood in Alzheimer's disease into a dramatic production, Expressions of Personhood in Alzheimer's , which was performed at the outset of focus group discussions with health practitioners. In this article, the authors report the results of an evaluation of health practitioners' perceptions of this theatrical adaptation as a pedagogical tool. Data from the focus group discussions and a self-administered post-performance survey suggest that there was a perceived relevance of the production to practitioners' practices, an increased understanding gained from attending the production, and a strong endorsement of the use of drama as an educational tool for disseminating information about dementia care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.983
GPT teacher head0.863
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations117
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207