Arts Express: An Adapted Creative Arts Camp in Waterloo, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with additional needs (CwAN) face barriers when accessing resources such as summer camps due to limited program accessibility. Full-day camps are a form of respite care for primary caregivers, while also providing a sense of independence for children. The arts are known to offer psychological benefits when explored in a creative and inclusive environment. This article describes a creative arts camp for CwAN from the perspective of two camp counselors and eight primary caregivers of CwAN. The camp details are described, from counselor training to the final performance at the end of the camp week. Caregivers felt that this camp structure allowed their CwAN to gain worth-while experiences in dance, drama, music, and visual arts. It also allowed them to feel a sense of safety and belonging by spending time with other CwAN and supportive camp counselors and volunteers. There are many strengths of this camp structure that can be applied to other camps in other settings. Program planners and community organizations should consider incorporating the creative arts into existing and developing programs.Subscribe to PALAESTRA
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".