Engagement of educators and parents in students’ health education in a low socioeconomic school in Quebec: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This qualitative study aimed to describe how educators and parents engage with students on health issues within the context of the Healthy School Approach in a disadvantaged Quebec school. Method: Individual interviews were conducted at the school setting with both educators ( n = 5) and parents ( n = 5) during the school year of 2010–2011. The interview protocol was based on Hoover-Dempsey, Walker and Ice’s (2010) revised theoretical model of the involvement process and more precisely on the mechanisms of influence, modelling, reinforcement, teaching and encouragements. Results: Findings indicate that educators’ and parents’ actions tend to involve modelling and encouragements in particular, with the main emphasis on physical activity and nutrition. Educators stress the importance of grounding their health actions in school activities related to the school project, whereas parents believe that their participation as volunteers in the various health-related activities organized at school significantly helps their efforts to support their child. Results highlight the parents’ undeniable contribution to children’s health within current educational systems. Conclusion: In their conclusion, the authors put into light the importance of two challenging denominators: (1) a shared vision of health; and (2) coherent health education actions in a disadvantaged environment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".