Creativity and Dementia: New Directions From Embodiment, Relationality, and Citizenship Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There have been important advances in research on creativity that have provided a more inclusive view of everyday and ordinary creativity, including that of persons living with dementia. However, these developments are limited by a lack of engagement with scholarship on embodiment, relationality, and citizenship. We address these limitations by drawing on a relational model of citizenship that offers a critical rethinking of the nature of creativity and the imperative that these be supported in long-term dementia care. We draw on transcribed video-recorded interactions between elder-clowns and residents living with dementia in one long-term care home in central Canada. These are analyzed with reference to key theoretical tenets of the relational model of citizenship. Embodied selfhood (i.e., the primordial and socio-cultural dispositions of the body that are fundamental sources of self-expression and relationality), are identified as key to the creativity of persons living with dementia. We argue that creativity is not an individual cognitive trait but rather emerges from the complex intersection of enabling environments and the embodied intentionality of all involved. We conclude that creativity must be supported in everyday life through organizational practices and socio-political institutions that more fully support the relational, interpersonal, and affective dimensions of care.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".