Youth Involvement in Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory Action Research (PAR) has been increasingly viewed as an effective strategy to enhance youth, community-based organizations that serve youth, and broader communities. However, young people have not been frequently involved in research and evaluation efforts as co-researchers or partners. This paper explored major challenges and barriers to the active engagement of youth identified in previous PAR projects. This critical literature review revealed relational, scientific, and ethical challenges. The relational challenges included a lack of trust and unequal power relationships between youth participants and adult researchers. The scientific issues were significantly associated with the major components of the PAR, such as transformative purposes, iterative processes, and flexible methods. Finally, significant ethical issues are identified in terms of potential risks to youth, confidentiality, and informed consent. This paper concludes with specific recommendations for effective strategies to deal with the challenges and barriers identified and possible directions for future research.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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 it