A Place to Go : Stories from Participants of Family Resource Programs (English)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Introduction]: " Family Resource Programs (FRPs) offer a model of early childhood learning and care embedded within environments that offer multiple services that are universally accessible and responsive to the needs and aspirations of families. The services provided by FRPs are aimed at engaging families in pursuing states of well-being for themselves and their children. In contrast to the traditional service delivery approach, FRPs embrace empowerment practices where service providers see themselves as catalysts or facilitators rather than as experts, and clients are seen as participants rather than as recipients. As such, in a family resource environment, there is a non-hierarchical and participatory approach to family support. FRPs have deep roots in the community and are an integral resource for building networks of support for participants and their families. There are over 2,000 FRPs across Canada, reaching hundreds of thousands of families. The everyday experiences of participating in FRPs reveal cascading levels of engagement, leading to multiple outcomes of value and significance. It is through these experiences, captured in the stories and dialogues voiced by participants, that we come to understand the essence of Family Resource Programs. These stories provide us with an appreciation of the far-reaching outcomes of this inclusive, community-based model of services for children and families."
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".