Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Youth in PAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the process used in a Participatory Research Project with Canadian Indigenous youth aimed at understanding their civic and cultural engagement. Specifically, we reflect on the approach taken, together with the core role of community partners in facilitating youth participation in this project. The process we used had three key aspects which facilitated effective youth engagement. First was flexibility and adaptability of the original study design, allowing the young people to adjust the project design, increasing their comfort levels and in doing so, assume as much or as little ownership of the process as they wanted. Second was building on preexisting relationships between mental health service provider staff and the community, which accelerated the establishment of trust. Through this trust, new relationships within the research team were able to develop. Third was the support of the youth engagement by the service provider staff, which provided support as required. This process improved the quality of the data collected, related findings, and for effective dissemination. Importantly, this staff–youth interaction has also increased longevity of the dissemination process. Our intent in reflecting on this process here is to further the dialogue on how to meaningfully engage ordinarily silenced and/or marginalized youth in research and evaluation as well as the sharing of findings.
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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".