Engaging youth to promote their well-being: methods and findings from a knowledge mobilization project in Nova Scotia, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms the human right of children to have their voices heard about issues affecting their lives. The One Chance to be a Child (One Chance) report provided an evidence-informed data profile of the well-being of children and youth in Nova Scotia (NS). To promote the report, we engaged youth from across the province in a knowledge mobilization (KMb) project. The purpose of this research is to outline the methods of the project, as well as the priority areas identified by youth. 10 NS youth (grades 7–12) were recruited to take part in a three-phased KMb approach: (1) A sense-making workshop to learn and discuss the report, (2) The planning and delivery of a youth-led forum to engage decision-makers in dialogue around the report, and (3) A participatory data analysis workshop to identify priority areas from the report. Data were collected through audio-recordings, note-taking, and pictures of all materials. Five priority areas were identified by youth: (1) Access to Care– high-quality care in a timely manner, (2) Community Care– inclusive community solutions, (3) Open Minded Education– school curricula that reflects their needs, (4) Quality of Life and Basic Needs– living wages and healthy workplace policies, and (5) Youth Empowerment– youth voice embedded throughout all actions. Engaging youth around the findings of the One Chance report supported their voices being heard, and their well-being needs to be considered by decision-makers. Children and youth have a right to have their voices heard on issues affecting their well-being. The One Chance to be a Child (One Chance) report provided data on the well-being of children and youth in Nova Scotia, Canada. To promote the report, we engaged ten youth (grades 7–12) from across the province to be part of a Youth Leadership Team where they were invited to communicate the report to decision-makers and identify their main priorities from the report. The project was broken up into three phases. First, the youth engaged in a full-day workshop to learn about the One Chance report. Second, they planned, coordinated and implemented a youth-led forum to share information from the One Chance report to decision-makers. Third, they engaged in a participatory data analysis workshop to reflect on and prioritize the report findings based on their discussions in phases one and two. Five priority areas were identified and named by youth: (1) Access to Care, (2) Community Care, (3) Open Minded Education, (4) Quality of Life and Basic Needs, and (5) Youth Empowerment. Disseminating and prioritizing the One Chance report with youth supports having their voices heard, and their well-being needs considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».