Youth social action: building a global latticework through information and communication technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New technologies and a growing global consciousness have created innovative opportunities for young people to connect locally, nationally and internationally for social action. This paper describes the dynamics of collective action in this new environment. Particular attention is given to how youth social action initiatives use information and communication technologies (ICT) to foster connection, action and sustainability. In-depth interviews were performed with five youths (aged 18-24 years) and two youth workers at two international non-government organizations (NGOs) focusing on social justice and human rights: Global Youth Connect and Amnesty International Canada. Qualitative methods were used to code and analyze the interview tapes and notes. Three main results are discussed: (i) the role of connection in building a youth action movement; (ii) the differential use of various communication technologies; and (iii) access barriers to connection opportunities. ICT enables new and expanded ways of connecting youth to express and share their experiences, which is a key success factor for social action initiatives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".