Bringing Dance to Older Adults: Program Experts’ Perspectives on the Role of Community Dance Classes to Support Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dancing offers several health and wellness benefits for older adults: it may promote physical literacy (PL) and positively influence the aging process. Yet, limited research considers the perspectives of those with experience working with older adults and in community dance programming. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand program experts' perspectives on how older adult community dance can promote PL and contribute to age-friendly cities and community initiatives. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four themes were identified from semi-structured interviews with five program experts: (1) expert instructors tailor classes to participants' needs and interests; (2) the heart of what draws us to dancing: authentic experience and social connection; (3) elitist, ableist, and gendered assumptions of dance prevent social inclusion of older adults in dancing spaces; and (4) collaboration across sectors is needed to offer accessible, sustainable, and valued dance programming. DISCUSSION: Recommendations for developing and implementing older adult community dance programming are described.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".