MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040118580 · doi:10.1177/1524839909353738

A Community-Based Hip-Hop Dance Program for Youth in a Disadvantaged Community in Ottawa: Implementation Findings

2010· article· en· W2040118580 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaUniversity of ManitobaWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
FundersNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDisadvantagedRecreationIntervention (counseling)General partnershipMedical educationFocus groupPsychologyDanceProgram evaluationPositive Youth DevelopmentGerontologyMedicineNursingSociologyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participation in physical activity is important for the positive development and well-being of youth. A community- academic partnership was formed to improve access to physical activity for youth in one disadvantaged community in Ottawa, Canada. After consulting this community, a new hip-hop dance intervention was implemented. Adolescents aged 11 to 16 years participated in one of two 3-month sessions. A girls-only and a boys-and-girls format were offered both sessions. This article investigates the implementation of the intervention from the perspective of the youth participants, parents, staff, and researchers. Multiple methods were used, including document review, observation, questionnaire, focus groups, and interviews. Overall, the consistency and quality of program implementation were moderately satisfactory; however, important concerns were noted and this program appeared to be only partially delivered as planned. These findings will be discussed in terms of suggestions for improving the implementation of this intervention and similar recreation programs prioritizing disadvantaged communities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.371 · 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