MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284351544 · doi:10.18192/clg-cgl.v3i1.185

Working with Recently Arrived Horn of Africa Youth: An Intercultural Partnership Approach to Community Cultural Development

2011· article· en· W2284351544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sue B. Clark, Jane Gilmour

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and Local Governance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MelbourneSky FoundationScanlon Foundation
KeywordsGeneral partnershipEmpowermentSustainabilitySociologyThe artsPublic relationsPsychological interventionYouth empowermentCommunity engagementPolitical sciencePedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents and evaluates an intercultural arts partnership program that was directed towards improving settlement outcomes for Horn of Africa youth recently arrived in Melbourne, Australia. The paper presents the conceptual framework within which this program was developed. It examines the processes used in the project and evaluates the outcomes based on interviews and observations. It presents a model for individual and community development through the arts that is based on a collaborative approach that empowers young people to take responsibility. It argues for sustained interventions, based on principles of cultural empowerment, leadership development, and intercultural understanding, in order to maximize the capacity of young people – previously marginalized and disempowered – to contribute to the social sustainability of the communities in which they live.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.111 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture and Local GovernanceSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207