MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905070836 · doi:10.20381/ruor-22852

“Never About Them Without Them”: The Ottawa Police Service’s Youth Advisory Committee as an Opportunity for Youth Civic Engagement

2018· dissertation· en· W2905070836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Renee Komel

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvisory committeeCivic engagementService (business)Political scienceHouse of RepresentativesPositive Youth DevelopmentPublic administrationPublic relationsLawPoliticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth civic engagement literature has suggested that the consistently low voter turnout among the youth demographic is because they are either apathetic to the world around them or they participate in other forms of civic engagement that they deem more practical, such as volunteering. Moreover, to build trust with the community, police services have turned to community policing programs and community consultation to establish a collective responsibility for community well-being and safety. This thesis project explores the dynamics and characteristics of the Ottawa Police Service’s Youth Advisory Committee as a youth engagement program. Further, these dynamics are analyzed regards to its potential to implement a democratization of the police service. In this way, the project uncovers the bureaucratic tensions that may impact the program’s full potential to involve the youth community in the police service. This project has the practical goal to learn more about the characteristics and dynamics of the Youth Advisory Committee within the Ottawa Police Service as a powerful police institution in order to improve other similar initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207