TELL IT LIKE YOU SEE IT: YOUTH PERCEPTIONS OF CHILD AND YOUTH CARE PRACTITIONER INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES IN AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL SETTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a semi-structured interview format, students (n = 7) attending an alternative school program who were supported by child and youth care (CYC) practitioners described their view of the work these practitioners do and the effect it has on the students. We were interested in learning about how students perceived the strategies and interventions they experienced and how the said interventions affected student outcomes. Students described program strategies such as the use of a token economy and daily group sessions as well as practitioner strategies including presence, support, use of self, and the student as resources for information and assessment. Students accomplished a variety of academic and socio-emotional outcomes, and identified the relationship as the basis for effective work between themselves and the CYC practitioner. Students identified both passive and persistent engagement strategies in the relational context. Together, these two types of engagement seem to create a continuum of constant engagement. Through a comparison of the student perceptions to the CYC practice literature, we offer a beginning point for a dialogue between students and theorists and researchers about some of the accepted and common practice strategies in our field.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".