MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900593085 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy031.3433

USING ARTISTIC TAPESTRIES TO EXPLORE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD OLDER ADULTS AND THE AGING PROCESS

2018· article· en· W2900593085 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thecla Damianakis, Amy M. Alberton, Katka Hrncic-Lipovic, A. A. Baké, Anthea Barron

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Clair CollegeUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workThe artsFocus groupService (business)PsychologyMedical educationWindsorGerontologySociologyVisual artsMedicineArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers governs and regulates the practice of both the social work and social service worker professions. Aging demographics imply the need for more gerontology trained social work and social service worker professionals, yet students’ interest in the field of aging remains low. The purpose of this arts-based study was to explore twenty undergraduate social work and social service worker students’ attitudes toward older adults and the aging process in the course of their gerontology setting field placement learning. We developed an arts methodology inviting student participants’ to engage in creating two themed mixed media art tapestries, over the course of five weeks. Video recordings captured the group processes and the evolution of the tapestries capturing a number of aging themes. Overall, the supportive group environment helped participants deepen their understanding of aging and the life-course. The tapestry creations provided an innovative outlet for sharing positive personal and professional perceptions and experiences regarding older adults and aging. We report results from two focus groups (conducted post tapestry completion) that capture students’ experiences regarding participation in the study and the meaning that the tapestries held for them. Also highlighted are facilitation recommendations identified by the students as essential to a successful tapestry experience. This research was supported by a grant from the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (FAHSS), University of Windsor, Windsor, ON.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207