Involving Young People in Research in Hedland - From ideas to action: a praxis model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes our experiences working with young people in Hedland in the Pilbara using participatory action research (PAR) to empower young people to transform their lives and create a more socially just, caring and responsive community. Over the past two years the fieldwork has taken place in the community and various forums engaging with over 300 young people including at-risk, ‘hard to reach’ young people (approximately 80% of whom are Aboriginal); approximately 75 stakeholders who work with these young people, and a further 50 people in social service sectors who want to link with these young people. Throughout the project we have adopted community development processes and transformative strategies (Freire 1993) which promote individual and group empowerment, aspirations and leadership. The project emphasises doing action research with young people in a way that fosters genuine partnership that will ultimately lead to the empowerment and resilience of young people and reconciliation. The work has two distinct aspects — the processes and outcomes involved in doing action research with young people and the goals, purpose and content of the programs and activities being implemented. This paper focuses on the processes involved in doing action research with young people from their initial engagement in the research to their involvement in the key events and outcomes. These include presenting their issues to stakeholders, the ongoing development and refinement of the Hedland Youth Development Framework (HYDF) and the development of the Hedland Youth Development Plan (HYDP). It does not discuss the merit or effectiveness of specific early interventions and preventative strategies; although there is ample evidence that confirms the efficacy of such approaches — that is the subject of another paper.
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 | 0.069 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".