An Analysis of Queen’s University Students’ Participation in Student-Run Development Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young Canadians have access to a wealth of opportunities to participate in short-term development projects within developing regions in Canada and around the world. These projects include voluntourism, ecotourism, academic exchanges at educational institutions abroad, research projects, religious missions, internships, and short-term development initiatives organized by student-run campus organizations. Although there are numerous studies that examine gap year projects or short-term development projects, there are currently no studies of young Canadian university students’ involvement in short-term development projects through student-run organizations. This study seeks to explore young Canadian adults’ motivations to participate in short-term development projects, how participants in short-term development projects imagine themselves as agents of development, and what short-term development projects are teaching participants. Individual interviews were conducted with young Canadian adults between 18 and 24 years old who participated in a short-term development project between 2008 and 2011. Participants were recruited from two student-run development organizations at Queen’s and all projects lasted between six weeks and three months. This study draws on development theorists such as Edward Said, Barbara Heron, Kate Simpson, and Rebecca Tiessen, to frame and examine participants’ responses. This study finds that young Canadian development workers draw motivation, justification, and imagined identities as agents of development from a complex interface between whiteness, gender, colonialism, Orientalism, and morality. This study concludes that a short-term development work is dominated by a simplistic narrative that depoliticizes development and identifies concepts produced and reinforced by this narrative. Further, this study identifies needs and recommends opportunities for future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".