Ageing, Drama and Creativity: a critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ageing, Drama and Creativity is a critical review focused on the cultural value older people derive from their involvement in theatre and drama. Though there are existing published reviews on the impact of participatory arts on older people, there is no review of the literature focused specifically on theatre and drama. 77 documents were reviewed as part of this study. They include published and unpublished research studies, evaluation reports, and descriptive overviews published as short pieces in journals, newspapers and magazines. The documents were generated through academic database searches and e-mail requests via relevant organisations and networks. They have been categorised and analysed according to these themes: \ndevised productions; drama programmes and workshops; intergenerational drama; pre-existing senior and intergenerational theatre groups; reflective studies and overviews; reminiscence drama; theatre and drama in care settings; and volunteering. This literature highlights the benefits and value of older people’s theatre and drama participation particularly on health and well-being; group relationships; and learning and creativity. A fourth area, the aesthetic value and quality of older people’s drama, is touched upon but is under-researched to date. Though there has been a recent surge of interest in this field (a third of the reviewed literature was published between 2010-2014), we suggest that there are multiple areas for further research. In terms of methods, there is a need for artsbased evaluation approaches, longitudinal studies, and co-research with older people. Research also needs to analyse effects of gender, race, class and age on older people’s participation in theatre and drama. Also, more complex research on the interplay between the intrinsic and instrumental value of participation is needed. Support is needed for more systematic evaluations of one-off drama projects and existing older people’s theatre groups. This could be achieved through the facilitation and support of sustainable relationships between academic researchers and practitioners.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".