“It’s All about Confidence and How You Perceive Yourself”: Musical Perceptions of Older Adults Involved in an Intergenerational Singing Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores and identifies the perceptions of older adults involved in an intergenerational singing curriculum that brought a group of 20 seniors together with a Grade 2 class of children in one small Ontario community. During six, one-hour sessions, the seniors and children experienced a carefully-designed curriculum that explored songs across various themes that served as a vehicle in fostering dialogue, musical discourse and shared learning among the participants. At the conclusion of the program, interviews were conducted, and seniors, children, and administrators were encouraged to share their personal musical narratives and background, in addition to their experiences from and about this program. There is little research that details the benefits of intergenerational singing, however observational and narrative data from this study, revealed a prevalent theme pertaining to the seniors' perception of lack of confidence, concerns about perceptions of themselves by the children, and musical inadequacy. In an effort to enhance singing education programs for every generation, these findings may provide the groundwork for social and musical considerations as program designers and leaders establish intergenerational music programs that facilitate optimal music engagement across the generations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".