Implicit Narratives in Participatory Arts Collaborations with People with Lived Experience of Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, participatory arts programs for people with lived experience of dementia have expanded in scale, number, and approach, both in North America and the United Kingdom. This narrative analysis considers how participatory arts programs and practices generate implicit narratives about what it means to live with dementia and about the value and meaning of arts and creativity to human experience. Using as examples several large-scale, multiyear, community-engaged, co-creative projects, I argue that these projects and others like them (a) shift cultural imaginaries of dementia through implicit narratives that construct lived experience as a legitimate form of knowledge, (b) uphold creativity as a universal quality, and (c) reimagine health and well-being discourses to include understandings of well-being that include ill-being. The projects construct implicit narratives about what living with dementia means-shifting away from notions of dementia as pathology and loss toward understandings of dementia that include creative potential, citizenship, and new conceptualizations of well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".