Alberta's Future Leaders Program: A Case Study of Aboriginal Youth and Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract / Resume In this paper, Alberta's Future Leaders Program is used as a case study to identify and evaluate the implementation, or lack thereof, of and community development Aboriginal contexts. Promising practices and potential program changes are also explored. As such we move beyond examination of the links between and community development and focus on how culturally appropriate programming can serve to benefit Aboriginal and community programs ways that allow Aboriginal to become more connected to themselves, their communities, and their cultures. L'article presente une etude du cas de l'Alberta's Future Leaders Program pour cerner et evaluer la mise en oeuvre, ou son absence, du developpement communautaire et du developpement des jeunes dans des contextes autochtones. On explore aussi les pratiques prometteuses et les modifications potentielles du programme. On depasse ensuite l'examen des liens entre la jeunesse et le developpement communautaire pour se concentrer sur les avantages que les programmes sensibles a la culture peuvent apporter aux programmes communautaires et pour les jeunes d'une maniere qui permet aux jeunes autochtones de mieux se connaitre et de se lier a leurs collectivites et leurs cultures respectives. Recreation programs for have become a popular way of 'developing' as well as the which they live. These programs are offered an attempt to engage and healthy lifestyles and to enable them to reap the benefits of participation leisure, recreation, and sport. With an abundance of programs and anecdotal evidence of their success comes the need to assess whether or not these programs are fact successful and, if so, what factors lead to their success. If common threads between successful and community programs can be identified, then criteria for development programs can be used to enhance and strengthen existing programs. In this paper, we use Johnston-Nicholson, Collins, and Holmer's (2004) framework of the Six Cs to examine Alberta's Future Leaders Program (AFL), while also drawing on broader literature pertaining to and mentoring. The AFL links development with community development an attempt to strengthen the ties between the predominantly Aboriginal with which the program works and the which they live. The AFL Program will be used as a case study to identify promising practices and community development an Aboriginal context. Further, we evaluate the implementation, or lack thereof, of these practice within the AFL, and potential program changes are explored. Introduction In the past, development and community development initiatives were often conducted independently of each other. However, according to London, Zimmerman, and Erbstein (2003), the failure to link and community development results youth development [that] are stunted their abilities to cultivate people's individual growth, their membership communities, and their ability to effect institutional and community and leads to young people's alienation and resentment of the implied low expectations and the cultural and political disconnect from their communities (p. 34). Community development can be defined as a process intending to educate and involve citizens a process of individual empowerment and community (Hutchinson & Nogradi, 1996:93), while, similarly, development involves positive change on an individual basis and/or on a societal basis (Baldwin, 2000). Certainly, linking programming and community development is important because each one can enrich the other. London et al. state that when thought of, and practiced together, youth, organizational, and community development can exponentially improve all community efforts (5). The authors also find that in partnership, these models of development can create ladders of responsibility and support that draw into progressively higher levels of organizational and community leadership (35). …
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".