Summer Camp Youth Leadership Development: An Investigation of Adolescents’ Perceptions of Best Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored adolescent participants’ perceptions of the Leaders-in-Training (LIT) program at Waycross Camp, a residential summer camp. The main data set was collected through interviews with former LIT program participants. A constant comparison data analysis of LIT program feedback revealed four emergent themes: (a) bridging the gap, (b) giving permission to be human, (c) rolling up your sleeves, and (d) serving the greater good. Each theme yielded an outcome, including (a) community, (b) openness, (c) empowerment, and (d) character, respectively. Concepts depicted in relevant literature were synthesized with these four themes and outcomes, yielding (a) social relationships; (b) identity and self-image; (c) agency and engagement; and (d) spirituality, ethicality, and morality, respectively. Together, these themes, outcomes, and concepts were integrated to produce a camp-based model of youth leadership development that reflected participant feedback on the LIT program’s best practices. Implications for future practice are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".