Inspiratie tot innovatie in jeugdhuizen, jongerecentra, jeugdcentra en jeugdclubs = Inspiration for innovation in youth centers, and youth clubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth centers and youth clubs need not only ask themselves the question, how can we achieve our objectives even better (more effectively), but also ask the question, do we aim at the right objectives (outcomes) in our organization. The target group of youth centers are the age group 14 to 24 and therefore has to do with a target group, which is in the transition from child to adulthood. In that phase of life, young people must be able to learn what they need to be able to function as adults in society later on. A youth center can contribute effectively to this, if consciously opted for a youth development approach, which is extensively discussed in this book. This book analyses the objectives, outcomes and functions of (open) youth work in the Dutch, English, French and German language studies on this theme in Western and Eastern Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This information appears to inspire youth workers in (re) formulating objectives and programming activities in their youth center. The participation of numerous volunteers and professionals in the organization policy of a youth center does not always be easy to realize in reality. In the last chapter of the book two methods are discussed to support a participative policy-making process in youth centers
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".