Biopsychological Effects of Social Participation on Aging: The Role of Identity-Affirming Music and the Arts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-known that social participation contributes to health.Emerging evidence also suggests that musical and artistic groups uniquely promote emotional well-being, socialization, and engage multiple cognitive functions.In this regard, the intervening and preventative capacities of artistic social groups ought to be considered to a greater extent, especially in light of increased population aging.The present research examined three artistic interventions among complex-care patients, individuals with dementia, and their caregivers.Three larger studies were also conducted to determine associations among different social groups, social identities (e.g.artistic, sport, religious), and various well-being outcomes, and to explore the potential moderating role of genetic polymorphisms in the relationships between groups and health.In Study 1, complex-care patients who listened to personalized music playlists reported fewer negative emotions, increased life satisfaction, and greater self-esteem over time compared to controls.Among people living with dementia and their caregivers in Studies 2 and 3, an artistic reminiscence program and music-making intervention strengthened relationships between carers and their care recipients, encouraged socialization between group members, and supported wellbeing.Studies 4 and 5 further investigated differences across social group types and revealed that artistic and educational social groups explained the greatest amount of variation in depression, memory, and executive functioning compared to other social groups.Yet, in Study 6, for retirement home residents and students, social identification was more strongly correlated with well-being than social participation alone.Moreover, overall group identity was positively correlated with telomere length among older adults.Interestingly, there was a positive association between group memberships and perceived social status for homozygous carriers of an IGF-1 SNP (rs7136446).Among older and younger adults, there was also a positive have been possible.At the forefront are my supervisors, Dr. Renate Ysseldyk and Dr. Hymie Anisman.They meticulously combed through every research proposal and study design that amounted to this body of work, of which I am very proud.Renate's compassion, commitment to health interventions, and thoroughness combined with Hymie's kindness, wisdom, and storytelling made for a team I wouldn't trade for the world.I am deeply grateful for their support, guidance, imparted knowledge, and for all the opportunities they provided throughout my doctoral journey.To Renate and Hymie,
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".