Building a Provincial Positive Fatherhood Involvement Strategy: Results from the Nov 21, 2013 Consultation in Red Deer, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report summarizes the information gathered from a consultation session conducted on Thursday, November 21st, 2013, in Red Deer, Alberta. Participants included academics whose research areas include involved fathering, as well as service providers, and leaders in the community who work with fathers in a variety of capacities. Prior to the consultation, the report “Promoting Positive Father Involvement: A Strategy to Prevent Intimate Partner Violence in the Next Generation” was sent to each participant. This research paper focuses on positive father involvement as an Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) prevention strategy, that is, a strategy to prevent IPV before those behaviors develop in the next generation. The report provides a rationale for new investments in positive father involvement strategies including specific recommendations in the areas of research, policy, and programming. This report is situated within a broader research agenda designed to build a comprehensive strategy to engage men and boys in violence prevention. The goal of this full day session was to disseminate knowledge about new research and trends in positive father involvement strategies in Alberta, as well as to explore recommendations and next steps in the areas of research, policy, and programming in Alberta.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".