It takes time: Building relationships and understanding through an intergenerational ballet programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals living in long-term residential care homes are often viewed through a negative lens. These residents have increasingly complex care needs, and their functional, communication and cognitive challenges can support conceptualizations of difference and disability perpetuating negative stereotypes of age and dementia. However, engaging in meaningful activities and relationships with older adults, including those with dementia, has been shown to promote positive attitudes. Specifically, intergenerational programming that provides opportunities for meaningful engagement between children and older adults has been shown to support positive emotional experiences through socializing and building relationships. This qualitative study explored the development of relationships between school-aged children and older adults with dementia living in a long-term residential care home. Residents in long-term care homes and children typically have limited opportunities to interact with each other; in this study, participating in an intergenerational dance programme provided an opportunity for meaningful relationships to develop. This paper focuses on the development of the children’s attitudes and understandings of their much older dance partners. Seven girls between the ages of seven and nine participated in ballet classes with residents in a long-term care home for one hour each week over a six-month period. All of the residents had a diagnosis of moderate to advanced dementia. Further, all of the residents also had other chronic health issues such as cardiac, respiratory and/or neurological diseases. The children were interviewed at the baseline, three- and six-month intervals. Prior to beginning the dance programme, the children anticipated their dance partners to be unwell and unable. However, by the end of six months, the children described the residents much more positively highlighting their abilities and strengths. Over time, through participating in a structured intergenerational programme, the children’s views of disability and difference disappeared as they formed dance partnerships and developed meaningful relationships.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".