The role of youth engagement in positive youth development and social justice youth development for high-risk, marginalised youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes reflective experiences documented by our youth leaders and community agency partners (n = 7 & 12, respectively) who have involved in our multi-year community-based research project. Overall, meaningful youth engagement facilitated by youth leadership was highlighted as a key mechanism for positive youth development (PYD) and social justice youth development (SJYD). First, the key PYD-related concepts identified include the following: (1) strengths-based empowering approach to youth engagement, (2) capacity building and positive outcomes for youth and youth-serving agencies and (3) youth-oriented, collaborative research processes that enable the promotion of these positive outcomes (e.g. honouring youth voice: ‘bottom-up process for youth by youth’). Second, the key SJYD-related concepts identified were as follows: (a) activating the voice of youth for social/system change, and (b) advancing research into action – knowledge translation and practical application. The contributions of our youth leaders to youth engagement were shown to be vital to promoting PYD and SJYD.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".