An evaluation of the national empowerment project cultural, social, and emotional wellbeing program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An array of cumulative risk and stress factors, and social inequities, have contributed to high suicides and family and community dysfunction, in two communities in Queensland.An independent, post-program evaluation of the National Empowerment Project (NEP) Cultural, Social and Emotional Wellbeing (CSEWB)Program specifically developed to address these issues was conducted in Kuranda and Cherbourg communities, Queensland in early 2017.Summaries of 153 stories of most significant change (SMSC) and 30 interviews undertaken with participants who completed the CSEWB program informed the evaluation.The evaluation assessed if, and how, the CSEWB program contributed to strengthening the cultural, social, and emotional wellbeing of participants, their families and communities.Participant's interviews describe how the CSEWB Program significantly changed their lives and their families' lives in various constructive and affirming ways to bring about positive outcomes.The extent of significant changes reported are compelling, and they highlight the need for greater government commitment to services and programs which address the social determinants influencing social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) within Indigenous communities around Australia.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it