Adapting Communities That Care in Urban Aboriginal Communities in British Columbia: An Interim Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable amount of research has been conducted on Aboriginal mental health and health promotion. However, implementation and impacts of culturally relevant health promotion strategies have not been equally addressed. This article provides an interim evaluation of Connecting the Dots, an innovative project designed to support and promote the mental health of Aboriginal youth and families in urban areas in British Columbia. Connecting the Dots adapted the Communities that Care (CTC) model, a prevention planning program promoting positive youth development and reducing risk factors that predict youth’s future involvement in problem behaviors. This article devotes specific attention to the necessitated adaptations of the CTC model to promote cultural relevancy in urban Aboriginal communities. Evaluation findings suggest that Aboriginal communities can successfully adopt mainstream evidence-based programming, provided that programs permit adaptations to meet the communities’ needs. For urban Aboriginal communities, programs must be re-conceptualized so that the linear, western delivery model is transformed to a holistic and circular implementation approach congruent with Aboriginal worldviews. In the Connecting the Dots project, inclusion of traditional Aboriginal practices and key Aboriginal representatives were among the most well received model adaptations. Evaluation participants reported that the adaptations made to the CTC framework have been critical to sustainability.
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 | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".