Sustainable capacity building among immigrant communities: the Raising Sexually Healthy Children Program in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Raising Sexually Healthy Children (RSHC) program is a peer-to-peer leadership training program for immigrant parents in Toronto, Canada. It was established in 1998 with the goal of promoting family sex education and parent-child communication. This evaluative study examined the developmental processes and outcomes of the RSHC program to identify the strengths, challenges and insights that can be used to improve the program. It employed a multi-case study approach to compare the RSHC programs delivered in the Chinese, Portuguese and Tamil communities. Data collection methods included focus groups, individual interviews and document analysis. The cross-case analysis identified both common and unique capacity building processes and outcomes in the three communities. In this paper, we report factors that have enhanced and hindered sustainable capacity building at the individual, group/organizational and community levels, and the strategies used by these communities to address challenges common to immigrant families. We will discuss the ecological and synergetic, but time-consuming processes of capacity building, which contributed to the sustainability of RSHC as an empowering health promotion program for immigrant communities. We conclude the paper by noting the implications of using a capacity building approach to promote family health in ethno-racial-linguistic minority 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".