MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978950423 · doi:10.1002/yd.203

Promoting autonomous functioning among youth in care: A program evaluation

2007· article· en· W1978950423 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martín Goyette

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Youth Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive Youth DevelopmentIntervention (counseling)PsychologyFuture orientationProgram evaluationIndependent livingApplied psychologyGoal orientationAdolescent developmentYouth studiesFoster careGerontologyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyNursingSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few years, considerable research has highlighted the challenges posed by social reinsertion of youth. For youth who leave an alternative living environment at the outset of adulthood, this integration is all the more difficult on account of psychosocial and health factors and a lack of support in preparing for independent living and employment requirements. Although they possess various qualifications and resources for making this difficult transition, many find themselves relying on public-funded services as they enter adulthood. After a brief outline of the contextual organization of youth protection offered in Quebec, the author presents an intervention program that aims to prepare youth in high-risk categories for social reintegration and independent living. This is followed by a presentation of preliminary results stemming from a three-year pilot study and an outline for intervention and support for troubled youths who are entering adulthood.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Youth DevelopmentSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207