Reconciling Concept and Context: The Dilemma of Implementation in School-Based Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The researchers used grounded theory methodology to study the implementation of a school-based alcohol and drug prevention project in secondary schools in British Columbia, Canada. Prevention workers (PWs) were responsible for working with school and community personnel in a collaborative process to develop, implement, and evaluate prevention strategies in the school using an adaptation of the Precede-Proceed Model for health promotion planning. Before they could begin to do this, PWs had to establish their credibility in the school. Once accepted, the focus of the PWs' work was to reconcile the goals, values, and philosophy of the project with those of the school. In doing so, PWs encountered many practical dilemmas. The challenges in resolving these dilemmas are presented, and the implications for policy and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.270 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.178 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.054 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".