MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791903066 · doi:10.1177/1524839918759956

Formative Evaluation of a Pilot Afterschool Physical Activity–Based Positive Youth Development Program

2018· article· en· W2791903066 on OpenAlexaff
Shaina Riciputi, Paige A Boyer, Meghan H. McDonough, Frank Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
KeywordsFormative assessmentPositive Youth DevelopmentPhysical activityPsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyEnvironmental healthGerontologyMedicinePhysical therapyPedagogyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4-H PALS is an afterschool positive youth development program for pre- and early adolescents delivered within the 4-H platform and designed to use physical activity to promote character development. The conceptual framework for this program, informed by the theory of triadic influence, prioritizes the social environment created during physical activities to promote adaptive outcomes. Given the novelty of the 4-H PALS curriculum, it is important to outline program components and identify both strengths and challenges to be addressed. Thus, this study aimed to document, describe, and conduct a formative evaluation of 4-H PALS. Major themes were identified across leader and participant interviews, program observations, lesson planning notes, attendance records, and intervention team feedback using inductive analysis methods. Three key areas of evaluation were identified: curriculum implementation fidelity, participant engagement with the curriculum and context, and the social environment. The program was successful in creating an affirmative, engaging environment fostering positive self-perceptions and social outcomes for participants. Challenges with logistical and conceptual implementation of the curriculum's character development concepts were identified. This evaluation will inform program refinements, with the goal of preparing the program for an efficacy study examining outcomes among participating youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207