"They want to come to school": Work-based education programs to prevent the social exclusion of vulnerable youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes and compares exemplary work-based education (WBE) programs in Ontario Canada designed to meet the needs of two groups of vulnerable youth - at-risk youth and youth with severe disabilities. PARTICIPANTS: Two focus group interviews were held, one with professionals from exemplary programs designed to meet the needs of at-risk youth and one with professionals from exemplary programs for youth with severe disabilities. METHOD: Standard qualitative analyses were conducted on each focus group transcript to generate themes which were subsequently grouped into larger patterns. Then cross-case analyses identified consistencies and unique features within the two types of WBE programs. RESULTS: Two major patterns that characterize the WBE programs emerged from the analyses: the first pattern described the programmatic approaches to WBE appropriate for each type of type of student (which included themes such as the need for an alternative learning environment for at-risk youth), and the second pattern highlighted the rationale for each kind of program (which included themes like ensuring equity for youth with severe disabilities). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that schools should continue to provide distinct WBE programs for each of these groups of vulnerable youth - at-risk youth and youth with severe disabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".