MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727213895

Who’s Hungry: The Development of a Youth Guide

2010· article· en· W2727213895 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rachel Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Activist Science and Technology Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPositive Youth DevelopmentTone (literature)IdeologyPublic relationsSociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringDevelopmental psychologyLawPoliticsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the development of a Youth Guide to hunger in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The initial Youth Guide was created to address the senstive topics of local hunger and poverty in a format that would be accessible to both students and teachers. Following an in depth review of historical constructions of the poor, as well as ideological assumptions, the decision was made to re-evaluate the initial Youth Guide, and reconstruct it. The re-evaluation included a critique of the overall content, tone and, layout of the existing Youth Guide with a view to designing an updated “unbiased” version for 2009. A review of the historical construction of “the poor” also informed the construction of the revised document. Revisions were made to the 2008 Youth Guide to create an improved 2009 Youth Guide to Hunger in the GTA, which is Chapter 4. Further reflections regarding the creation of documents of a sensitive nature are suggested and reviewed for future publications.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Activist Science and Technology EducationSame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207