Not So NEET: A Critical Policy Analysis of Ontario's Youth Job Connection Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario government has identified youth unemployment as a central societal problem that it seeks to address through policy measures. It has recently switched its focus from assisting all youth towards assisting NEET youth (neither in employment, education or training), as is demonstrated in the current youth employment policy Youth Job Connection (YJC), which began in the fall of 2015. This MRP situates YJC as part of a broader trend away from designing youth policy as an explicit form of social control to a seemingly more positive approach of youth development. Using this example, it showcases the continuities between the social control and youth development models. Specifically, it seeks to answer the question: how does the framing and context surrounding YJC illustrate the limits of this approach in addressing NEET youth unemployment in Ontario? Keeping these questions in mind, I will demonstrateâthrough a critical policy analysis inspired by a critical political economy theoretical frameworkâthe ways in which the positive youth development model taken up by YJC is failing to meet the needs of Ontarioâs young people. Ultimately, the positive youth development model can be seen as a form of social control under the guise of youth development, as it seeks to funnel young people into neoliberal ideals of what a citizen should be: employed, flexible, consistently improving themselves, and perhaps most importantly not questioning the status quo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".