Facilitating participation in an online dance class for people living with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Care workers practice different approaches to facilitating social participation and managing (non-)responsiveness in activities for people living with dementia. Utilizing an on-screen dance activity in a foreign language, carers in this study draw on multimodal resources and shift their footings in participation frameworks to demonstrate and reformulate expectations in pursuit of responses. Method: Data were collected as part of a test pilot for a dance program designed for people with cognitive and physical challenges. The program was remotely delivered from Canada to a private, assisted living facility in Finland during the COVID-19 pandemic. Video recordings of five consecutive weekly dance classes were transcribed and analyzed using an ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) approach to multimodal interaction, looking at directive-response sequences. Results: Our preliminary results explore how co-present facilitators encouraged participation of a non-responsive participant through embodied directives in three ways: through demonstrations and reformulations in co-participation; through repetition and emphasis in response to non-compliance; and through a subsequent proposal of a change in the interactional frame. Discussion/conclusion: There are various recipient-designed ways in which care workers facilitate participation in on-screen arts-based programs, including how they address non-compliance.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".