MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538153086 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.1613

P2‐401: Singing My Way Back to You: Learnings from the Intergenerational Choir Project for Singers with Alzheimer's Disease, their Caregivers, Music Educators, and Students

2016· article· en· W2538153086 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carol Beynon, Betsy C. Little, Kathy McNaughton, Jeffrey G. Beynon, Jennifer Hutchison, Nancy O'Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanAlzheimer Society London MiddlesexWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingingChoirPsychologyMusic educationMoodMusic therapyActive listeningPersonhoodMedical educationPedagogyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing body of evidence that musical interventions have the temporary capacity to evoke emotions, influence mood, reduce emotional and behavioural disturbances, relieve pain, and improve quality of life in persons with dementia. While there is literature that describes the role of music listening, sing-alongs, and other activities as therapies for persons with Alzheimer’s Disease, there is little in the literature about the role of new learning through singing for those with AD. In this session, we report on a study of an innovative and collaborative intergenerational choral program that brings together persons with AD, their caregivers, high school students, and their music teachers. We articulate the role that the choir plays in providing: new learning opportunities for persons with AD; music and health education for adolescent students; respite, reunion, and learning opportunities for caregivers; and, professional and personal development for music educators. We report on the observed and emergent themes from the data, that relate to Learning, consisting of Learning about: i) Self, about singing; ii) Personhood & Identity; iii) Defining and Rekindling Relationships; iv) Health & Well-being; and, v) Affective and Aesthetic Engagement & Agency in Response to Singing Using these themes, we articulate the curriculum, process, and outcomes to map and describe the learning outcomes. As a result of the success of this choral program in the aforementioned areas, it has been shared and developed in centres across Ontario, and even to Norway.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207