Girls just wanna have fun: Year two evaluation to understand improvements and continuing challenges of implementing a female youth-driven physical activity-based life skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (GJWHF) program is a female-only physical activity-based life skills program that aims to empower female youth and facilitate positive psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this research was to conduct a process evaluation of the second year of program implementation to gain an understanding of improvements over the first year of the program and continuing challenges faced by the program leaders while implementing the program. From interviews with youth and leaders, as well as documentation from the leaders’ weekly online log of each implemented session, a number of themes emerged. First, related to the program’s successes, year two of GJWHF addressed a number of recommendations from year one including providing a larger space for the program, more reliable transportation, smaller group sizes, more community involvement for youth, and more on-going training for leaders. Themes related to ongoing challenges included competing club activities, low participation rates, and the development of social cliques. Recommendations for future programing included having longer program sessions and integrating older participants as junior leaders of the program. Overall, this process evaluation represents an important step in understanding how to improve program delivery to better meet the needs of the participants in community-based programming. In addition, this evaluation has helped improve the program and facilitated the transition to incorporating the GJWHF as a sustainable program that is being integrated into regular ongoing programming at the Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa.Acknowledgments: Research Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".