The recreation mentoring program: a community engagement initiative for children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Approximately one in five Ontario children show symptoms of significant mental health problems. These children exhibit impairments at home, at school and in the community, often with long-lasting effects. Involvement in structured community-based recreation programs may be protective for these children; however, they often encounter multiple barriers to participation (e.g., facility fees, lack of family or peer support, and reluctance to try new activities). METHOD: The Recreation Mentoring Program is a community-wide program that reduces barriers to participation while providing an important relationship with a caring, young adult mentor. Trained volunteer mentors are matched with at-risk children, and meet regularly at a community recreation centre near the child's residence. The mentor's role is to: 1) stimulate participation in recreational programs, and 2) promote the child's continued participation after the mentorship ends. RESULTS: Limited program evaluation suggests that the Recreation Mentoring Program engages at-risk children in community-based recreation, that it is operationally feasible, and that it produces high levels of client satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The Recreation Mentoring Program holds promise as an effective community-based intervention for children with mental health problems.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".