MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886206963

Youth in Participatory Development at the Community Level

2012· article· en· W1886206963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grace-Ann Phidhelia Cornwall

Bibliographic record

VenueCaribbean dialogue · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory developmentCitizen journalismAsset (computer security)Context (archaeology)Process (computing)Community developmentSustainable developmentPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyBusinessEconomicsComputer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The participatory development framework in this paper is set in the context of pro-poor development practices. This paradigm made popular by Chambers (1998) advocates the harnessing of people's energies and indigenous knowledge and expertise. It presents an opportunity for conscienzation of persons. This has the potential for minimizing the alienation of participants in the development process so that they take their future into their own hands. Copious literature reviews have indicated that although youth are an asset to the development process, failure to incorporate them in the local and national planning processes have dire implications on sustainable human development. The paper begins by presenting an overview of the benefits of participatory development and its importance to social policy. There is an examination of the concept of youth within an age-category and in its social context. This is followed by a discussion on youth in participatory development, the benefits to be derived and the factors that stymie the process of participation at the local level. The paper concludes by identifying policy implications and recommendations for sustaining youth participation in local development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaribbean dialogueSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207