A Guide to Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Programs for Hispanic Couples and Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OverviewThe Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) a Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood program aims to provide low-income couples and individuals with the tools needed to form and sustain healthy marriages and relationships, promote father engagement, and increase economic self-sufficiency.1,2 Research finds that health promotion programs are most effective when they are culturally appropriate to the population served-when the program design, content, and delivery are responsive to cultural norms.3 Accordingly, ACF has emphasized the importance of developing culturally-sensitive Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) and Responsible Fatherhood (RF) programming for diverse populations.To better understand what HMRE and RF programs are doing to reach and serve Hispanic families, we conducted an extensive review of federally-and non-federally-funded programs serving Hispanic couples and fathers.Based on this review, we developed a program guide summarizing multiple aspects of HMRE and RF programs that target and serve Hispanic populations, including location of the program, target population, and a range of implementation and evaluation factors (see Table 1 and Table 2 for more detail).This guide is accompanied by detailed profiles for each program listed in the guide, and can be used to easily and quickly access information about HMRE and RF programs serving Hispanics.This guide can also can be used to compare and further categorize programs, for example, to review only those programs that are offered in Spanish.We include two categories of programs in the guide: (1) programs that serve a Hispanic majority (50 percent or more of the population served is Hispanic), and (2) programs that have a Hispanic presence (at least 20 percent of the population served is Hispanic).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.017 |
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".