Re-claiming citizenship through the arts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare literature, public discourse, and policy documents continue to represent persons with dementia as "doomed" and "socially dead." This tragedy meta-narrative produces and reproduces misunderstandings about dementia and causes stigma, oppression, and discrimination for persons living with dementia. With few opportunities to challenge the dominant discourse, persons with dementia continue to be denied their citizenship rights. Drawing on the concept of narrative citizenship, we describe a community-based, critical arts-based project where persons with dementia, family members, visual and performance artists, and researchers came together to interrogate the tragedy discourse and construct an alternative narrative of dementia using the arts. Our research demonstrates the power of the arts to create transformative spaces in which to challenge dominant assumptions, foster critical reflection, and envision new possibilities for mutual support, caring, and relating. This alternative narrative supports the reclamation of citizenship for persons living with dementia and fosters the relational citizenship of all.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".