MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969317994 · doi:10.1080/14675986.2012.664751

A reflection on the broader, systemic impacts of youth volunteer abroad programmes: a Canadian perspective

2012· article· en· W1969317994 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary Pluim, Shelane Jorgenson

Bibliographic record

VenueIntercultural Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningRedressSociologyPopularityPublic relationsContext (archaeology)ColonialismYouth studiesExperiential learningPolitical sciencePedagogyGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the increasing popularity and appeal of youth volunteer abroad (YVA) programmes, powerful critiques are emerging. While these programmes tend to promise much in the way of global ethics and global citizenship in youth participants, they often neglect to seriously interrogate the one-way movement of people from the centre to the periphery and valorize the knowledge and perspectives of the host communities. These programmes, especially those not geared toward social justice and facilitating youth through the struggles and aftermath of experiential and transformative education, have the potential to perpetuate the same neo-colonial practices they seek to overcome. This article examines the benefits, context and history of YVA in Canada, analyses them under a post-colonial theoretical framework, discusses the gaps between theory and practice and proposes alternative ways that researchers, practitioners and policy-makers can redress the colonial implications of YVA programmes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntercultural EducationSame topicTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207