Engaging street‐involved youth using an evidence‐based intervention: A preliminary report of findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Street-involved youth experience many barriers to accessing health and social services. There is a literature gap in the literature regarding evidence-based interventions to facilitate engagement with street-involved youth. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study of preliminary findings from a large mixed-methods study was undertaken to assess the impact of a resilience-based motivational intervention. This intervention was grounded in frameworks including strengths-based and resilience-based communication using the Seven C's Model of Resilience, positive youth development, and motivational interviewing that are particularly relevant to youth. Individual interviews were conducted with two subsets of youth who participated (n = 3) or did not participate (n = 3) in the intervention. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes between the intervention and comparison groups. FINDINGS: Preliminary themes identified across the sample include (1) establishing a trusting relationship, (2) strengthening self-worth and resilience, (3) focusing on goals, and (4) perceiving a sense of hope and possibility. CONCLUSIONS: The themes identified the importance of positive relationships with care providers built upon a foundation of trust to engage youth to remain motivated and focused on their goals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".