MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254283580 · doi:10.1002/9781119397984.ch2

Relational citizenship: supporting embodied selfhood and relationality in dementia care

2017· other· en· W4254283580 on OpenAlexaff
Pia Kontos, Karen‐Lee Miller, Alexis P. Kontos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipEmbodied cognitionAgency (philosophy)Reciprocity (cultural anthropology)SociologyExpression (computer science)Context (archaeology)CreativityHuman sexualityDementiaEntitlement (fair division)PsychologyAestheticsEpistemologySocial psychologyGender studiesSocial sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We draw on findings from a mixed-method study of specialised red-nosed elderclowns in a long-term care facility to advance a model of ‘relational citizenship’ for individuals with dementia. Relational citizenship foregrounds the reciprocal nature of engagement and the centrality of capacities, senses, and experiences of bodies to the exercise of human agency and interconnectedness. We critically examine elder-clown strategies and techniques to illustrate how relational citizenship can be supported and undermined at the micro level of direct care through a focus on embodied expressions of creativity and sexuality. We identify links between aesthetic enrichment and relational practices in art, music and imagination. Relational citizenship offers an important rethinking of notions of selfhood, entitlement, and reciprocity that are central to a sociology of dementia, and it also provides new ethical grounds to explore how residents' creative and sexual expression can be cultivated in the context of long-term 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207