Youth in Participatory Development at the Community Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".