MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385323683 · doi:10.1080/17482631.2023.2238989

“I made you a small room in my heart”: how therapeutic clowns meet the needs of older adults in nursing homes

2023· article· en· W4385323683 on OpenAlexaff
Ludivine Plez, Melissa L. Holland, Priyanka Kulasegarampillai, Thun-Carl Sieu, Stefanie Blain‐Moraes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityNursingReminiscenceResidenceNursing homesMedicinePsychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

=23) experienced therapeutic clowns from eight countries were interviewed to understand the needs of nursing home residents met by elder-clowns, and strategies and techniques the clowns use to address them. Participants identified five major needs: to escape routine; for reassurance of worth; for meaningful, personalized social interaction unrestricted by communication barriers; to have culturally meaningful opportunities for reminiscence; and to have a space where residents could be unapologetically themselves. The artistic and emotional strategies used by the therapeutic clowns to address these needs illustrate how creativity, imagination and relational presence can provide nursing home residents with a sense of being known and belonging. Elder-clowns also positively affect the nursing home staff and enrich the interpersonal interactions in the residence. Through their focus on the social and emotional needs of residents, elder-clowns can play an important and distinct role in creating an optimal nursing home experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-BeingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207