Leisure-time youth centres as health-promoting settings: Experiences from multicultural neighbourhoods in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this paper is to advocate for the importance of meaningful leisure time for young people from a health-promotion perspective using experiences from two youth centres in multicultural neighbourhoods in Sweden. METHODS: In this practice-based study, data were collected between 2012 and 2014 at two youth centres in multicultural, socially deprived suburbs in Sweden using surveys with 12- to 16-year-old adolescents ( n = 207), seven individual interviews with staff and three cooperation partners in the neighbourhoods, and six group interviews with adolescents (50% girls). Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods were used for analysis. RESULTS: As part of the youth centres' strategies, they are open and inclusive, foster supportive relationships, emphasise youth empowerment, and integrate family, school and community in their work. The youth centres are health-promoting settings with regard to four of the action areas in the Ottawa Charter: build healthy public policy, create supportive environments, strengthen community actions and develop personal skills. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a variety and a combination of various structured and unstructured leisure-time activities because young people's background and life situation plays a role for their participation in leisure-time activities. We conclude that youth centres are well placed to be or to become health-promoting settings if the activities takes place in a structured environment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".