Participant Acceptability of the STEM-Focused ANGELS Pilot for Adolescent Females From Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ANGELS (Agriculture & Nutrition for Girls while Encouraging Leadership & STEM Enrichment) is a program for female adolescents from communities of color aiming to increase interest in STEM-education and careers with experiential agricultural and nutrition activities. To test the acceptability of the ANGELS pilot program. Program staff implemented ANGELS as a quasi-experimental, treatment-only pilot over 6 weeks in summer 2023 on a university campus in Southeast, Tennessee. Each week of the full-day programming had a different STEM-related theme (eg, agriculture, nutrition, leadership). All participants were 6-8th grade female adolescents from communities of color. Acceptability measures included weekly participant process evaluations (11-items) that explored opportunities for programmatic improvement and participant satisfaction and engagement; pre/post program evaluations (38-items) that explored interest in STEM content and careers; and post-intervention ripple effect mapping focus groups to explore participant perceptions of the impact of the ANGELS Program on themselves, their families, and their communities. Descriptive statistics were calculated for process evaluations and paired samples t tests examined differences in pre/post program evaluations. An inductive analytical framework was applied to qualitative evaluation data and code frequencies were calculated to inform direct content analysis. Most participants were retained throughout the pilot (n=15/16). Participants reported a mean score of 3.4/5 (±0.62) on the 8-item engagement scale (α=0.66). Although not significant, data from pre/post-intervention showed increases in “interest in math content” (3.89±1.46 vs. 4.09±1.36, respectively) on 7-point Likert-type scale; “perceptions of being in an environment supportive of science careers” (3.16±0.52 vs. 3.25±0.50, respectively) on a 5-point Likert scale; and “intent to pursue STEM-related education” (3.15±0.33 vs. 3.23±0.35, respectively) on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants perceived that learning about nutrition and food security were the most important takeaways. Participants indicated acceptability of ANGELS pilot; however, larger scale studies are needed to measure program effectiveness. Exploring the ANGELS program model as an avenue to address lack of nutrition practitioners from racial/ethnic minority groups is warranted. NIFA
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".