Youth Development Programs in Lithuania: Prevention and Positive Youth Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current review aims at evaluating the correspondence of prevention programs for late adolescents (15-19 years) implemented in Lithuania in 2006-2013 with PYD framework. Fifteen programs were included in the final analysis for this review. We used the criteria of positive youth development programs identified by Roth & Brooks-Gunn (2003a): program goals, activities and atmosphere. We also included measurement of program outcomes and structure of the curriculum as additional criteria. Youth development programs implemented in Lithuania contain several features consistent with PYD conception. The range of goals offered by the programs match all the 5Cs of thriving, however Lithuanian prevention programs are not aimed at promotion of Caring and Connections as much as Competence, Character and Confidence. The duration of the programs does not create the sufficient prerequisites for supportive atmosphere. Program activities are mostly oriented at providing knowledge. The effect of the programs is uncertain, because of the absence of the most important features of effective youth development programs identified in other cultural contexts. In addition, we summarized the implications of this review for future developers of youth development programs in Lithuania: PYD conception should be utilized as the theoretical basis as well as assurance of implementation quality and use of quasi-experimental design of effectiveness measurement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".