Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study developed a model of youth work practice based on a philosophy of nonviolence. Youth work in Australia is in the process of creating a clear self-consciousness and idea of its role, and a philosophy of nonviolence provides a strong foundation for further development. The study was based on the first three phases of intervention research (problem analysis and project planning, information gathering and synthesis, and design) within a heuristic paradigm. It involved a literature review, a telephone survey of 60 youth workers, in-depth interviews with 20 young people and 15 youth workers, and focus groups with 16 youth workers. Literature on youth work in Australia and Britain, and youth care in Canada and South Africa helped identify key features of youth work. Ten principles of nonviolence were developed based on principled nonviolence literature. The telephone survey provided a broad overview of current practice in New South Wales, and identified issues for further exploration in the interviews. The in-depth interviews with youth workers and young people explored their perceptions of violence and discrimination within their services; ways in which youth workers prevent and respond to disruptive, violent and unsafe behaviour; and ways in which youth work practice can be consistent with a philosophy of nonviolence. Based on the research, a model of nonviolent practice was developed, and then refined following focus groups with youth workers. The model encourages youth workers to be committed to nonviolence in all they do; to develop a reflective work practice; to build professional, caring relationships; to focus on power-with; to be committed to social change; to apply principles of social justice; to ensure there are adequate, appropriate staff and resources; to negotiate clear expectations and boundaries; to create a positive environment; to respond to behaviour nonviolently; and to facilitate informal education.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".