Free to be: Experiences of arts-based relational caring in a community living and thriving with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To present findings about experiences of relational caring at an arts-based academy for persons living with dementia. BACKGROUND: There is a compelling call and need for connection and relationships in communities living with dementia. This study shares what is possible when a creative arts-based academy for persons living with dementia grounded in relational inquiry and caring focuses on relationships through the medium of the arts. DESIGN: A qualitative phenomenological methodology (informed by van Manen) was used to answer the research question, "What is it like to experience relational caring at an arts-based academy for persons living with dementia?" We address two research objectives: (1) to explore how relationships are experienced when a relational caring philosophy underpins practice, including arts-based engagements; and (2) to understand the meaning of relationships that bring quality to day-to-day living. METHODS: Twenty-five participants were recruited from the Academy and interviewed in one-to-one in-depth interviews or small groups. Participants included five persons living with dementia, eight family members, four staff, five artists, one personal support worker, and two volunteers. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of relational caring or relationships in the Academy space. FINDINGS: . CONCLUSIONS: Findings contribute to the growing body of knowledge about both relational caring and arts-based practices that call forth a different ethic of care-one that is relational, inclusive, and intentional. Findings also shed light on what is possible when a relational caring philosophy underpins arts-based practices-everyone thrives.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".