MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Engagement of ‘At-Risk’ Youth Through Meaningful Leisure

2017· article· en· W2596517008 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Park and Recreation Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive Youth DevelopmentRecreationYouth studiesPsychologySocial exclusionEmpowermentSocial psychologyMental healthSociologyPublic relationsDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many young people today experience marginalization and exclusion.In particular, youth living with challenging conditions such as poverty, homelessness, abusive/addictive behaviors, and mental health issues, often have limited access to opportunities and resources.This paper focuses on the role of leisure as a meaningful way of youth engagement.Specifically, the paper explores how youth-led leisure opportunities can help young people caught in the dynamics of exclusion and marginalization, which often magnify inequities and hinder positive developmental outcomes.Through both a critical review of the literature and a reflection on the gaps identified within the examined literature, a conceptual model of mechanisms involving leisure and youth engagement is presented for potential use in future research and practice.Described as circular relationships in the model, youth-led meaningful engagement through leisure is proposed to promote positive relationship-building, co-learning, power-sharing, and empowerment.In turn, positive interpersonal relationships are proposed to support meaningful leisure within a safe, open, and non-judgmental space to co-learn.Furthermore, meaningful leisure is proposed to provide an avenue to reinforce positive relationships and learn/discover about self, others, and the world.Importantly, what youth do with leisure, rather than what leisure does to youth, should be emphasized to promote constructive youth-led engagement through meaningful leisure.The former concept (i.e., what youth do with leisure) is more youth-driven than the latter concept (i.e., what leisure does to youth), which is more prescriptive in nature.Overall, this paper suggests that simply because we develop leisure programs for “at-risk/high-risk” young people, the use of a top-down, prescriptive approach can be detrimental to them.Rather than adults always leading engagement activities, it would be more desirable to share with and be guided by youth concerning the leadership and mentoring of engagement activities including both leisure and non-leisure pursuits in youth’s lives.Because of leisure’s unique characteristic of being intrinsically chosen and defined, leisure is a very important tool in a bottom-up, youth-led/guided approach to meaningful engagement of “at-risk/high-risk” youth.Through sharing experiences with youth and learning alongside of them, leisure can provide an avenue for youth to connect positively with their peers and communities, and to promote constructive meaning-making in their lives.These insights have important implications for reframing leisure programs within social services, and improving leisure policy and practice to make these more youth-oriented.Through enacting these youth-oriented changes, programs can better support and inspire youth’s passions for the pursuit of meaningful, fulfilling lives. Subscribe to JPRA

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.287 · 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