A Feminist Evaluation of Victim Services of Leeds and Grenville's Youth Program with a View to Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation utilizes feminist theory to examine Victim Services of Leeds and Grenville's Youth Program, violence against women and girls, and prevention and intervention programs for youth.The study includes both quantitative and qualitative elements, and focuses social self-efficacy and social connectedness.The standardized measures used for the quantitative study were Muris' (2001) Social Self-Efficacy Scale and Lee and Robbins' (1995) Social Connectedness Scale.Thematic analysis of the qualitative data involved identifying meaning units and categories, then themes.The Randomized Control Trial finds that participation in the Summer Youth Program was not significantly associated with changes in participants' social self-efficacy or social connectedness, according to the scales used.The qualitative study found, however, that the experiences of both youth and service providers who'd had some involvement with the Youth Program were reported to result in increased social self-efficacy and social connectedness, as well as leading to some recommendations.majority of victims who access the program are girls, many of whom have been victims of dating violence, sexual violence, stalking and/or harassment, perpetrated by boys and men.The purpose of the current study, therefore, was to evaluate the three aspects of the Youth Program with a view to preventing violence against women and girls.The study involved an evaluation of Victim Services of Leeds and Grenville's Youth Program, and was funded by a $15,000 research grant provided by Women's College Hospital's Women's Xchange fund.The Hospital is fully affiliated with the University of Toronto and issued a call for proposals in the fall of 2013.An application was submitted on February 1 st , 2014, with Victim Services of Leeds Grenville's Executive Director, SonyaJodoin, as the primary applicant, and Carleton University Master of Social Work student, Julie Shaw (myself), as the collaborator.The funding decision was provided in March, 2014, with the condition that a 3-5 minute video showcasing the project was to be provided to Women's
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".