MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W29804974 · doi:10.29173/alr141

Creating a Path by Walking It - A Year in Review of Pohna: Keepers of the Fire

2011· article· en· W29804974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen L. Erickson, Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Fiona Hossack

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionCriminologyWork (physics)Order (exchange)SociologyPublic relationsPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth involvement in criminal activity and gangs is a complex problem. This article examines Pohna: Keepers of the Fire, a gang intervention and diversion program for at risk youth. The program seeks to guide at risk youth away from criminal activity by creating a place where youth are valued and their strengths are used to build their connections and responsibilities to the community. There is no simple and straightfoward answer to addressing the problem of youth involvement in criminal activity and gangs. However, from our analysis of five case studies, we have learned that in order to develop effective programs and interventions for at risk youth, we need to focus our attention on learning from them and our interactions with them. To effectively support the youth involved in Pohna, we need to understand and address the broader forces at work that both strengthen and undermine their resiliency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207