Youth Voice and Positive Identity-Building Practices: The Case of ScienceGirls.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through two stories of youth voice, learning, and identity development in an afterschool science program for girls only, we show the ways in which such programs can be understood as important identity-building practices. We describe key dimensions of a sociocultural approach to youth voice, learning, and identity, situated also in the context of the literature on afterschool programs. We then explore the manner in which youth voice and identity were marked by time and space. We conclude with a discussion of youth voice and ethics in collaborative research projects with youth. Resume Grâce a deux etudes de cas, nous montrons de quelle maniere un programme parascolaire des filles peut soutenir des pratiques de construction identitaire. Tout d’abord, nous decrivons quelques dimensions clefs de la voix des jeunes, de l’apprentissage et des pratiques de construction identitaire selon une approche socioculturelle, ancree dans la litterature sur les programmes parascolaires. Nous explorons ensuite la place de la voix des jeunes et le travail identitaire, ainsi que la maniere dont il est marque par le temps et l’espace. Nous concluons avec une discussion sur la voix des jeunes et des questions ethiques soulevees par de tels projets de recherche collaboratif.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".