Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many research, notably that of Gene Cohen (2007), have shown positive impact of artistic activities for seniors. In 2006 in Quebec City, three professional painters have created a none lucrative organization called Les Pinceaux d'Or (The Golden Brushes). Its mission is to create a positive experience of painting learning in elderly needing persons. The organization operates in long-term health-care facilities or in low-income housings and day centers. It offers free painting courses to elderly persons referred by local community health centers or community organizations as seniors with psychosocial needs. The only condition for participation is to be a person able to hold a brush. The person often uses his memories to personalize the subject, positive emotional exchange with others, not to mention pleasant moments, sharing, discovering that we still can learn, even in the presence of Alzheimer's or stroke sequel. Participants averaged 81 years old, and four of them are over hundred (one person was 110 years old). We expect to present the humanistic approach of the organization and, in summary, the results of a qualitative study of the perceived effects of those courses on participants. Finally, we want to illustrate that we face there an evolutionary artistic process and that artistic activity is a form of hygiene, especially when someone is getting older. Second, we suggest that the process of healthy aging involves an adjustment of personal development that should never stop. Through these courses, the seniors develop a personal growth congruent to the recovery ideology: a life project (mostly leave a mark to family members); empowerment; social inclusion; and finally citizenship.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".