MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893076195

An evaluation of the national empowerment project cultural, social, and emotional wellbeing program

2017· article· en· W2893076195 on OpenAlexaff
Tjalaminu Mia, Pat Dudgeon, Carolyn Mascall, Glenis Grogan, Bronwyn Murray, Roz Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)Emotional well-beingPsychologyPublic relationsSocial psychologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceClinical psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA)Same topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207