MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981523638 · doi:10.1177/0044118x19883737

Youth Civic Action Across the United States: Projects, Priorities, and Approaches

2019· article· en· W2981523638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Gustafson, Alison K. Cohen, Sarah Andes

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivicsCivic engagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceVariety (cybernetics)Action (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Youth participationSociologyGeographyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth civic engagement is relatively low in the United States. However, when students are involved in an action civics class (like Generation Citizen), they enthusiastically take action on a wide variety of topics. To systematically assess what issues youth are interested in, we analyzed administrative data from 1,651 action projects conducted by students in Generation Citizen classes across the United States from fall 2012 through fall 2017. We found that the most common issues of interest were related to safety and violence or schooling. Over one quarter of projects tackled issues of trauma, and a similar proportion tackled issues of equity. This exploratory study helps reveal what urban youth in Generation Citizen classes around the county view as of civic interest and important to them. We encourage future researchers and practitioners to further document youth voice regarding civic action as we seek to understand and lift up young people’s unique insights.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.310
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYouth & SocietySame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207