A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of the 1616 Story-Based Positive Youth Development Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1616 Program is a newly developed and evidence-informed story-based positive youth development (PYD) program for young ice hockey players (10–12 years of age) in North America. The program uses elite ice hockey players as role models—through story-telling—to serve as inspirational figures to engage youth athletes and important social agents (i.e., parents, coaches) with evidence-informed PYD concepts. The objective of this study was to use a Proof-of-Concept evaluation to assess whether the 1616 Program ‘worked’ in enhancing PYD outcomes and to determine if the concepts were engaging and enjoyable for youth, their parents, and coaches. The 5 week Proof-of-Concept evaluation was conducted with 11 ice hockey teams (n = 160 youths, 93 parents, and 11 coaches), encompassing both qualitative (e.g., focus groups) and quantitative (e.g., retrospective pretest-posttest questionnaires) processes and outcome assessments. Results showed that the program was well received by participants and positively impacted the intended outcomes. Overall, the data presented in this Proof-of-Concept evaluation was deemed to support the development and implementation of the full-scale 1616 Program for a more comprehensive evaluation.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".