Empowerment durch Kapazitätsentwicklung im Quartier – erste Ergebnisse und Einschätzung eines Erhebungsinstruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Capacity building is regarded as an intermediate outcome and success parameter for community health promotion and empowerment. The first aim of the study was the development and examination of a tool to measure capacity building in the context of a programme of health promotion for children and parents in a socially disadvantaged quarter in Hamburg (about 3000 residents, 60% with migration background). The second aim was to measure capacity building within a period of five years. METHOD: A survey was carried out with 27 professionals from the health and social field. Dimensions of the instrument were: citizen participation, local leadership, available resources, networking and co-operation, support of residents. At the same time, we tested to what extent the instrument is suitable for resident surveys. Furthermore, pretest instrument and results were discussed with our advisory board regarding potential improvements. RESULTS: The result of the project, in addition to its practical use in the quarter, consists of the generation of a psychometrically tested instrument to measure capacity building. Furthermore, the experience contributed to the expertise on how such a study can be conducted. A comparison of the situation in 2006 with the situation in 2001 showed considerable improvements in all dimensions of capacity building in the quarter. CONCLUSION: Establishing the instrument on a long-term basis calls for more intensive examination not only of the chances, but also the limitations of the tool. We mainly attribute the overall positive picture that was gained within a period of five years to the generally supportive climate of development in the quarter as well as to the strong and continuous commitment of individual persons involved.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".