MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141523136 · doi:10.4995/muse.2021.14962

Students’ civic engagement in Ukraine and Canada: a comparative analysis

2021· article· en· W3141523136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Оксана Заболотна, Anna Pidhaietska

Bibliographic record

VenueMultidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianCivic engagementPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)CivicsSociologyPolitical scienceDemocracyPersonalityPsychologyPedagogySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>In this article, the authors have carried out a comparative analysis of students’ civic engagement in Ukraine and Canada. They have surveyed the students at Pavlo Tychyna Uman State Pedagogical University and compared the findings with the results of a study done by the Canadian researcher Catherine Broom at British Columbia University. Based on the research findings, the authors have identified Ukrainian students’ personal political and civic experience levels and compared them with the Canadian results. The study reveals Ukrainian students’ attitudes towards political and civic participation, democracy, the government in general and in comparison with Canadian data. The research results have identified the following key factors that influence Ukrainian students’ civic activity: students’ free time activities their attitudes and beliefs. According to the survey, gender, religious involvement, personality type, and family’s political involvement do not directly influence the students’ civic engagement. The survey has not reported any influence of school social study courses on civic engagement, stressing the importance of real-life experiences that result in attitudes and intrinsic motivation. The authors have also revealed examples of motivations and barriers for youth civic involvement.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological SciencesSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207