An exploration of the health concepts, peer-helping behaviours and attitudes of street-involved youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health concepts, peer-helping behaviours and the role of the peer network in passing health information was explored among street-involved youth in a city in northern British Columbia. Perceptions of 21 youth were gathered through interviews and/or focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using content analysis and were viewed through the lens of the health belief and health promotion models. Results indicate that street-involved youth form peer groups and that these peer groups provide some positive support but also reinforce some unhealthy behaviours. The youth provide one another with some information related to their health and are able to provide guidance as to who would prove to be effective peer health counsellors. Youths' descriptions of what it means to be healthy depict mainly physical states of health and convey that the youth either have not incorporated a broad or holistic sense of health into their health concepts or are simply unable to express it. Exceptions to this limited view of health are among older youth who have had exposure to counselling. The Health Promotion Model was useful in explaining links between the health concept of street involved youth and its implications for the development of effective peer programs. The Health Belief Model was useful in calling attention to some of the perceived barriers to health action that could be minimized through an effective peer program. Implications for further research into factors underlying variations in health concepts and peer-helping behaviour in street-involved youth are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".