Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study involved two phases. The objective of the first phase was to explore the need for and preferred delivery mode of a workplace parenting program. The objective of the second phase was to adapt and test the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-existing parenting program that has been run successfully in community settings to parents in their workplace. To achieve the first objective, we conducted 9 individual or small group interviews with 11 employers representing 8 different organizations across South Western Ontario. Results from the interviews showed that a workplace parenting program is of interest to employers and resulted in a number of suggestions from employers on ways to structure the program to fit into the logistical constraints of a workplace setting. To achieve the second objective, we adapted a pre-existing program incorporating employer suggestions to create Parents Working Together (PWT), a workplace-based parenting program that incorporates general parenting and weight-related messages. We then tested the program using a pre/post uncontrolled feasibility trial with 9 employees of a large manufacturing company located in Guelph, Ontario. The main finding from the feasibility trial was that PWT was feasible and acceptable to employees. PWT may also be effective in changing parent and child weight-related behaviours, as well as easing parent stress and improving work-life balance. These results indicate a workplace-based program that addresses general parenting skills and weight-related behaviours may be a feasible and effective way to engage and educate parents. A full-scale trial is needed to determine the effectiveness of this approach.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".