Group singing on social prescription: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this international scoping review was to assess the evidence of group singing as a form of social prescription. While efforts have grown over the last two decades to catalogue and evaluate the health benefits of arts and cultural activities as part of social prescribing, there has been limited exploration into group singing on social prescription, specifically. Given the growing body of research supporting the health and wellbeing gains of both group singing and social prescribing, this first scoping review is needed and timely. Published evidence is very limited at the moment, and only nine studies met the eligibility requirements. Identified barriers to wider integration of singing on prescription included lack of formalization of the social prescribing process, challenges solidifying buy-in from general practitioners and other healthcare professionals, difficulties sustaining funding, and shifts to organizational structure resulting in staff changeover and loss of institutional knowledge. Recommendations for future research, wider implementation of singing on social prescription and standardization of evaluation methods are included.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 it