MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1863681092 · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs34201211484

YOUNG PEOPLE’S EXPERIENCES IN YOUTH-LED PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH FOR HIV/AIDS PREVENTION

2012· article· en· W1863681092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keiko Goto, Jennifer Tiffany, Gretel H. Pelto, David Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMario Einaudi Center for International StudiesUNICEF
KeywordsParticipatory action researchYouth participationQualitative researchHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Citizen journalismYouth engagementAction researchPsychologyPolitical scienceGerontologySociologyMedicinePublic relationsPedagogyFamily medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a project in the UNICEF-initiated “What every adolescent has a right to know” (RTK) program, qualitative interviews were conducted with youth (13 to 21 years of age) who were reached through a youth-led participatory action research (PAR) project. The interviews were conducted with both urban and rural participants in a Caribbean country where potential exposure to HIV/AIDS represents a significant threat to young people’s health. The purpose of the study was to examine how a truly youth organized PAR effort was perceived by the adolescents who were reached through the project. The results suggest that the central role played by youth researchers (the PAR community leaders) created a mode of participation that facilitated the collaboration of at-risk and marginalized youth. The type of engagement created was distinct from modes of participation fostered when adults alone worked with youth.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.722
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.071 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207