MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592669292 · doi:10.22230/cjnser.2013v4n2a145

Youth Community Gardening Programming as Community Development: The Youth for EcoAction Program in Winnipeg, Canada

2013· article· en· W1592669292 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephanie Fulford, Shirley Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive Youth DevelopmentSociologyEmpowermentCommunity developmentPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Youth for EcoAction (YEA) program is a project of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg involving at-risk youth. This community development program focuses on urban agriculture and community gardening and was developed using the Circle of Courage pedagogy. The program was analyzed through participatory methods. YEA youth interns built skills, improved self-esteem, increased environmental awareness, enhanced food security, and fostered their own social networks to help counter the attraction to gangs and dealing with other issues. Benefits were also felt at a broader community level, through positive environmental, social, and physical changes. Youth-serving agencies, community development organizations, and government policy makers could look to the YEA as a model for youth empowerment and community revitalization. Le programme Youth for EcoAction (YEA) pour les jeunes à risque est l’œuvre des Clubs garçons et filles de Winnipeg. Il met l’accent sur l’agriculture urbaine et le jardinage communautaire. Les Clubs ont développé YEA en recourant à la pédagogie du Cercle du courage. Pour analyser ce programme, les auteurs de cet article ont employé une méthode participative. Pour les jeunes, les bénéfices de YEA incluent le développement de compétences, une sécurité alimentaire accrue et la formation de réseaux qui les aident à échapper à la tentation des gangs et autres problèmes. À un niveau communautaire, les bénéfices comprennent des améliorations environnementales, sociales et physiques. Pour les agences jeunesse, les organismes de développement communautaire et les stratèges gouvernementaux, le programme YEA peut servir de modèle d’autonomisation des jeunes et de revitalisation de la communauté.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy researchSame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207