I Have Something to Say! Young People Research, Analyze and Take Action on Their Homeless Lifeworlds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Working in a homeless youth shelter in a major Eastern Canadian city, over a one year period, 35 homeless males and females, aged 16-24, engaged in a participatory action research project. The youth systematically brainstormed 107 potential research themes pertaining to their experiences, concerns and interests in youth homelessness. Of the 107 themes that the youth conceived, they prioritized three that are the focus of this dissertation, and a theatre play, “The Other Side of the Door” that represents the findings. The three themes that the youth prioritized are: stereotyping and stigmatization in the young people’s various lifeworlds, ‘who is a homeless youth’ and the relationship of parenting to youth homelessness. After considering a variety of potential art forms and artworks from the participants to represent their findings, the youth selected a theatre script, “The Other Side of the Door,” written by one of their peers in the study. By including and analyzing the youths’ decisions and ideas about their research priorities and findings in this study, new insights and understandings, from the youth living the problem, are contributed to scholarly research about youth homelessness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".