LIBERATING THE ARTS FROM THE THERAPY CULTURE IN DEMENTIA CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influenced by biomedical/behavioural models, the arts within dementia care are valued primarily as therapy; arts-based interventions are provided as non-pharmacological means to improve functioning of “patients” and treat misunderstood “behaviours”. Informed by theorizing within liberation arts and critical theory, this presentation aims to liberate the arts in dementia care from the therapy culture and demonstrate the power of the arts to address broader relational and social justice issues connected to aging and elder care. We draw on interview, focus group, and video data from four qualitative research projects using theatre, visual arts, an arts-based learning academy, and elder clowning. Findings demonstrate how the arts: challenge dominant discourses and problematize oppressive policies and practices; ignite personal discovery, growth, and transformation; and nurture relational citizenship. The arts create transformative spaces for relational flourishing and prompt the social change needed to reduce the harm and suffering experienced by older adults living with dementia.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".