How visual art -making activities impact the overall wellbeing of retired seniors : a case study of Creek Springs Retirement Center in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to inquire into how engagement in visual art-making activities can impact the overall wellbeing of elderly seniors in retirement centres. My basic interest was to explore the possibilities and limitations of visual art-making activities in the lives of the seniors. As an artist, researcher and teacher, I was guided by an a/r/tographical case study methodology of research. Using living inquiry as focus, I created openings, allowed slippages and gave way for loss, shift, and rupture to create presence through absence during the visual art-making activities with the seniors. The research was situated in an independent living facility in Vancouver BC whereby the elderly seniors voluntarily had an opportunity to work with various materials and tools to create visual art works. Seventeen participants were involved in three workshops that took two hours each. As the researcher I documented the proceedings through detailed field notes, photographs, audial recording and videos. The process of art-making provided the seniors with an opportunity to relate to their lives. Art-making activities have the power to encourage conversations about the present, the past and the future thus giving hope and direction to the seniors. Visual art- making activities elicited humour leading to social enjoyment, boosted self-confidence and raised self-esteem for the seniors. This research has demonstrated that making with materials, social connectedness and the flow in the process of making are essential attributes that can contribute to the overall wellbeing of the elderly. It was also clear that completion is not an end of learning, instead it is a state of continuing change that invites the seniors to explore more creative possibilities. The study hopes to share concerns raised by the senior residents and hence benefit the larger community as programs are designed for retirement centres. This may eventually generate guidelines for directing visual art-making activities for the seniors in retirement centres.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".