Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for a Strategic, Coordinated Approach to Violence Prevention Programming for Children and Youth in Calgary, Alberta: 2012-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence prevention programming in schools has proven an effective means of reducing interpersonal violence such as bullying, sexual violence and domestic violence. In Calgary, these types of programs are currently offered by over a dozen different service providers, each having developed or adopted a different approach. The need to coordinate these efforts has long been recognized in this city, with coordination initiatives extending back as far as 2002. To date, however, attempts to develop a more cohesive and strategic approach in Calgary have been unsuccessful. In 2012, Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence approached two funders – the United Way of Calgary and Area and the City of Calgary’s Family and Community Support Services – to support renewed efforts to coordinate violence prevention programming in this city. The need for coordination was heightened by the fact that Fourth R (Relationship), a teacher delivered evidence-based violence prevention program for youth in grades 7-9, was going to be scaled by Shift across Alberta. Having been alerted to this change in the programming landscape, service providers were eager to come together to consider the implications for their programs. While the project produced a number of good resources for educators and service providers, stakeholder engagement in VPP steadily declined, and the initiative began to lose momentum. As a result, the project was placed on hold in the Spring of 2015, and an evaluation consultant was contracted to gather feedback on the initiative, document learnings, and develop recommendations for next steps. This report offers a brief summary of the findings and recommendations arising from the VPP 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 | 0.173 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".