MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558980612 · doi:10.5195/jyd.2010.218

Structural Social Work Lens: A View of Youth Engagement in the Social Policy Life of their Communities

2010· article· en· W2558980612 on OpenAlexaff
Donna Hardy Cox, E. Michelle Sulivan, Nancy E. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Youth Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial engagementPublic relationsYouth studiesPositive Youth DevelopmentAction (physics)Social transformationSocial changeCommunity engagementSustainabilityWork (physics)SociologyAction planPower (physics)Political scienceSocial scienceEngineeringManagementGender studiesEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presented through a structural social work lens, this paper is a description and analysis of an action research project designed to explore factors that encourage or impede the engagement of youth in the social policy life of their communities. The project was conceptualized in a geographic region characterized by the erosion of community sustainability due to social economic disadvantage and out migration. The project aimed to strengthen communities by enhancing participation of youth in social policy development. It utilized a workshop designed and delivered by youth for youth and the development a Social Policy Action Plan (SPAP) to address a policy issue of concern in youth’s local community. Principles of structural social work, with particular attention to power sharing, unmasking the structures, collective consciousness, transformation of power/political and personal change, social action and community capacity building are applied as a lens to explore this project.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.049
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Youth DevelopmentSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207