A preliminary investigation of the mental health impact of involvement in a participatory arts program in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory arts programs (PAPs) aim to enhance individual well-being through art, however, few studies have investigated the effects of PAPs in Canada. This study evaluated the mental health effects following participation in Artbeat Studio Inc. in Winnipeg, Manitoba. From 2012-2015, 54 participants attended the 6-month Artbeat Studio Inc. residency, with 52 participants completing follow-up questionnaires. Questionnaire measures assessed mental health symptoms, life satisfaction, and well-being pre- and post-residency. Paired samples t¬-tests examined symptom changes across pre- to post-residency. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance examined the impact of sociodemographic factors on symptom change. After bonferroni correction, significant reductions in somatization (t = 3.39, p = 0.001) and depression symptoms (t = 3.50, p = 0.001), and enhanced mental well-being (t = -4.70, p < 0.001) post-residency were observed. Sociodemographic factors had no influence on the change in symptoms. These findings suggest that Artbeat Studio Inc. may be associated with improvements in mental health. This provides individual, community, and fiscal implications at a time when alternative mental health programming in Canada is imperative.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".