Transitioning relational arts for persons living with dementia to a virtual space
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
Background While a growing body of literature explores the potentials and challenges of transitioning in-person to online arts for persons living with dementia (PLwD), little research has examined the translation of relational arts to virtual spaces. This paper explores the experiences and transition of a relational arts Academy to a virtual space for community artists with dementia.Methods Using participatory action research, we conducted 10 research conversations with artist facilitators, collaborators, and leaders involved in the transition process, and 13 observations of online arts sessions and team member huddles.Results Team members successfully translated relational arts virtually by intentionally embedding relational literacies, leveraging relational supports, and embracing creativity. Although initially reluctant, artist facilitators, collaborators, and leaders were opened to the possibilities of relational arts in virtual spaces.Conclusion This research demonstrates the feasibility of relational arts for PLwD in virtual spaces, and offers insights to inform other virtual art programs for PLwD and their care partners.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it