MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Positive Youth Development Can Support Low-Income Roma Youth Living in the United States

2021· book-chapter· en· W3200312248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marija Bingulac

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive Youth DevelopmentPolitical scienceYouth studiesMainstreamInjusticeEthnic groupPovertyCriminologyEconomic growthGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deprivation and discrimination, including the destruction of housing settlements, forced evictions, and persistent violence, led a portion of Europe’s 12 million Roma to seek refuge in the United States and Canada. Approximately 1 million Roma live in the United States, and 80,000 Roma currently live in Canada. Profound experiences of injustice in their home countries have led Roma in the United States to keep their lives hidden from mainstream society. The Roma as a race/ethnicity is not accounted for in any American surveys, and research on their well-being in the United States is scarce. This chapter fills knowledge gaps by presenting a one-of-a-kind comprehensive literature review synthesizing empirical evidence on the lives of Roma people and their youth in the United States by applying the positive youth development (PYD) framework that focuses on promoting positive asset-building for youth and seeing youth as vital resources in development strategies. In doing so, the chapter advances beyond the more usual narrative that has focused on the problems of Roma youth to examine the mechanisms that can enable them to flourish in the United States. Romani youth is a case study example of youth of color in general; this chapter adds to the body of knowledge that examines how PYD development matters for positive developmental outcomes of a minority group that has experienced socioeconomic disparities strictly because of the stigma of their identity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicAgricultural Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207