MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010395060 · doi:10.1177/0044118x12455024

Youth-Led Decision Making in Community Development Grants

2012· article· en· W2010395060 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth & Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Child Rights and DevelopmentConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViewpointsPositive Youth DevelopmentFocus groupPreferenceYouth studiesPsychologyPublic relationsCommunity developmentPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines youth-led decision making (YLDM) among groups of youth who are providers or recipients of community development grants. Focus groups, interviews, and participant observation with 14- to 20-year-olds and supporting adults showed youth have a preference for consensus-based decisions. Youth used due process to reach decisions while valuing differing viewpoints. Adults created appropriate spaces and guided without controlling. Youth directly involved in the YLDM process experienced the greatest and most immediate benefit though other youth, and the community as a whole also felt positive impacts over time. The study considers the type of supports required for young people to make meaningful decisions and points to the capacity of youth, and the potential of YLDM, for community 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.268 · 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