Constructing success: The conundrum of evaluating a community-based program for street-involved youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based arts programs (CBAPs) for street-involved youth in Canada are notoriously vulnerable to funding cuts. This vulnerability can be traced to the existing gulf between the way government funders like Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), CBAPs like Kensington Youth Theatre and Employments Skills (KYTES), construct and measure success. Currently, youth perspectives are conspicuously missing from discussions about the impacts of these programs. To gain a fuller understanding of the current dilemmas CBAPs face, this thesis asks: 1) How do stakeholders including youth, KYTES, and HRSDC construct success? and, 2) What are the implications of these findings for program evaluation? This thesis suggests that KYTES and HRSDC often use limited constructions and measures of success. It calls for structural and conceptual shifts in evaluative criteria and practices and the implementation of Youth Participatory Evaluation (YPE), an alternative evaluative strategy, to address current dilemmas surrounding program development and evaluation.
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 | 0.111 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".