pARTicipate: Art as Self-Expression for Persons with Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Aphasia is an acquired communication disorder resulting from a stroke or traumatic brain injury. Persons with Aphasia (PWA) have deficits in language comprehension and expression. Loss of communicative functions can be isolating for PWA as they may face barriers to accessing community-based leisure programs. Aphasia-friendly materials, visuals and simple written or oral instructions, can reduce such barriers and support communicative access. Objective The pARTicipate project is a student-initiated art group that was piloted with the aim of encouraging PWA to trial an art class in a communicatively accessible and low-risk environment, as part of an outpatient rehabilitation program. By using a life participation approach for aphasia, this project aimed to promote participants’ discovery, or rediscovery, of a hobby. Methods Four PWA completed six art projects over 9 weeks. Communicative access was enhanced by using aphasia-friendly instructions and demonstrations to teach the projects. Participants showcased their projects and taught their skills to family and community members on the final “Share Day”. Results Qualitative and quantitative data was gathered from satisfaction surveys. One hundred percent of the participants indicated that they enjoyed sharing their art with the community, and that they would join the group again if it was offered. Additionally, all participants indicated they would be likely to continue exploring art in the future. Conclusions It is expected that the skills learned by PWAs in pARTicipate may help increase their confidence about participating in other community-based art classes. As well, continuing to use these skills may help participants develop a sense of belonging to the artistic community. By learning to incorporate personal symbols, PWA can be deliberate in their use of art for self-expression in the future. Finally, PWA were empowered to assume a leadership role during “Share Day”. Having the opportunity to teach newly acquired artistic skills to their family and community members promoted positive feelings about the self and served to reveal their cometencies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.006 |
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".