The Circulation of Youth Policies and Adaptation of Youth Work Practices Organised by Young People at Local Level in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article is focused on two local participation initiatives in North America and Europe. The Youth Services Cooperatives, summer organizations created by teenagers in Quebec, have been adopted in France since 2013, with the support of local institutions responsible for organising youth policies in the Brittany region (France). The other initiative, youth dialogue exchanges organised by young people, was established in Italy, the United Kingdom, and France. This European scheme aimed to create new ways of thinking about cultural policies for young people at local level. Conceptually, this work is based on actor-network theory (Akrich, Callon, and Latour, 2006) and the transnationalisation of public policies (Hassenteufel, 2005) applied to youth policies (Loncle, 2011), with a view to understanding how organisations working across different countries adapt certain international initiatives between different local contexts. The research is based on fieldwork. Interviews were conducted with young people, youth workers, and decision makers in France and Quebec. In Italy and in the UK, informal discussions and interviews with decision makers were carried out, and observations were made during activities led by young people. The analysis demonstrates that the circulation of participation initiatives is strongly dependent on the original context, especially with regard to the organisation of youth policies. Some characteristics of the initiative, for example the model of community organisation, are difficult to transfer to a country where public policies are centred around public institutions. Because of the absence of international actors who would be able to facilitate links between the organizations involved in these projects, local youth workers have taken on the role of international mediators between the original project and the new initiative in the destination context. These experiences are of interest for understanding how young people can have a fundamental role in implementing new participation initiatives, and have an impact on the definition and implementation of youth policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".