MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7027519006

DANCE IS FOR EVERYONE: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF COMMUNITY-BASED DANCE PARTICIPATION FOR OLDER ADULTS

2025· article· en· W7027519006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessDanceIntrapersonal communicationInterpersonal communicationHappinessAffect (linguistics)Quality of life (healthcare)Population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: As the population ages, increasing physical activity (PA) among older adults (65+) is crucial for enhancing their health; however, only 40% meet the recommended PA guidelines (Statistics Canada, 2023). Dance offers an engaging form of physical activity that can enhance holistic well-being (Santos et al., 2020). Despite these benefits, barriers to participation persist. This study investigated the effects and experiences of older adults participating in community- based dance as a form of PA, including the various factors influencing their engagement. Methods: In Study I, participants completed a questionnaire which included five scales: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-S), the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), the Short Happiness and Affect Research Protocol (SHARP), the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and the UCLA 3-Item Loneliness Scale. Study II utilized interpretive phenomenology to guide one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Results: Questionnaire analysis revealed older adults in dance exhibited moderate to high PA levels (IPAQ-S), strong physical functioning and low fall risk (ABC), strong emotional health (SHARP), no impaired functioning or cognitive impairment (FAQ), and low levels of loneliness (UCLA3). Interviews highlighted three intrapersonal (e.g., physical impairments), two interpersonal (e.g., poor instructors), and four community-level barriers (e.g., availability), while seven intrapersonal (e.g., adaptable), two interpersonal (e.g., social connections), and four community-level facilitators (e.g., inexpensive fees) enhanced participation. Conclusions: This study highlights how community-based dance enhances the holistic health of older adults, motivating them to engage in a form of PA that enriches overall quality of life. By identifying key factors influencing and hindering dance participation, the research offers valuable insights for designing effective dance programs tailored to older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→