Creativity, music, and quality of later life: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to interrogate the existing literature that articulates indirect or direct links between quality of life (QoL) and creativity in later life musical learning and participation. Search terms were related to the concept (creativity), the context (music), the population (aging), and the outcome (QoL). Twenty-three articles were retained. The link between creativity and QoL focused primarily on the role of creativity in life enrichment and subjective well-being. Creativity in participatory music-making was found to be underpinned by social engagement, collaboration, and inclusivity. Opportunities for creative expression through participatory music-making offered a range of benefits relating to QoL that included positive emotions, engagement, relationships, a sense of meaning, and accomplishment. Our systematic review highlights limitations with regard to theoretical explanations for the characteristics of a creative musical process or product within later life contexts, the specific contributions of these creative processes and products in relation to quality of later life, and the specific ways in which creative musical expression can be facilitated within diverse and multicultural later life contexts so as to maximize the potential QoL benefits for our aging population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".