Promoting First Relationships®: Implementing a Home Visiting Research Program in Two American Indian Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few, if any, home visiting programs for children under the age of three have been culturally adapted for American Indian reservation settings. We recently adapted one such program: Promoting First Relationships®. OBJECTIVES: To culturally adapt Promoting First Relationships® while maintaining program fidelity, we used a community-based participatory approach to elicit input from two American Indian partners. METHODS: University-based researchers, reservation-based Native project staff, and Native tribal liaisons conducted collaborative meetings, conference calls, and focus groups to adapt Promoting First Relationships® to reflect local community needs and values. LESSONS LEARNED: Working closely with onsite Native project staff, being flexible and open to suggestions, and attending to the logistical needs of the community are imperative to developing and implementing adaptations. CONCLUSIONS: Several adaptations were made based on the collaboration between researchers and Native project staff. Collaboration is critical for adapting programs so they can be tested in ways that respect both American Indian culture and research needs.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".