Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sense of Community theory suggests that people feel more attracted to groups and settings in which they feel influential or powerful. Unfortunately, young people have no voice or influence in many of the contexts in which they find themselves. Furthermore, teenagers are often unequipped and undersupported to participate fully and feel like they are making meaningful contributions to society. This is especially the case for young people who are disadvantaged or members of a minority groups. A two‐part study was undertaken to explore sense of community in adolescents. The first phase utilized existing tools to measure adolescent sense of community in school, neighborhood, and city contexts. The second phase of the study relied on in‐depth interviews with teenagers to better understand how they construct their sense of community. This article reports findings from the second phase and looks closely at the sense of community domain of “influence” as it applies to adolescents. Interviews with young people suggest that they feel a stronger self‐described sense of community in contexts where they experience voice and resonance, some power and influence, and adequate adult support and challenge. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comm Psychol 35: 693–709, 2007.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".