Supporting and Accompanying Young People After the Lac-Mégantic Train Derailment (Quebec, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In July 2013, a train transporting oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, causing major human, environmental, and economic impacts. A community-based survey of people aged 10-25, conducted in 2017, revealed that many young people suffer in silence and report feeling isolated. These observations led to the conclusion that we must make room for young people, and that opportunities for engagement and participation must be provided within the community. Aim: The Public Health Direction of Estrie aimed to identify strategies to promote health and wellbeing for young people living in and around Lac-Mégantic. Methods: A collective reflection half-day was hosted with sixty key stakeholders (school board, other education institutions, health and social services, community sector, municipal/political sector, parents, youth). Throughout the event, participants were invited to build on and learn from accomplishments and experiential knowledge, and develop a common vision of the solutions to be pursued or implemented. All qualitative data sources (verbal and written data from large- and sub-group activities) were analyzed through a content analysis. Results: Several themes (i.e. potential solutions) emerged from the analysis: common venue, diversified activities, communication, collaboration, involvement, support for at-risk youth, intergenerational component, etc. Participants agreed on four priorities for action: 1) creating a gathering place, 2) establishing a Youth Committee, 3) supporting adults working with youth, and 4) fostering a better flow of information. Discussion: Several positive outcomes of the collective reflection half-day were observed, including the mobilization of the participants who greatly appreciated the event, and many promising ideas launched by stakeholders. A social worker is now fully dedicated to supporting youth wellbeing and engagement in Lac-Mégantic. A Youth Committee has been established and projects by and for youth are being implemented. Bottom-up approaches to identify solutions to complex situations are not only effective but also respectful of the local culture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".