Peering in: youth perspectives on Health Promoting Schools and youth engagement in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health Promoting Schools (HPS) is a whole-school approach that shapes the conditions necessary to support student health and well-being. Youth engagement is recognized as key to HPS implementation, yet research related to the involvement of youth voice in school health promotion initiatives is limited. The purpose of this study was to understand youth perspectives on HPS and school youth engagement. Ten youth (grades 9-10, ages 14-16) were trained as peer researchers using a Youth Participatory Action Research approach. The peer researchers interviewed 23 of their peers (grades 7-10, ages 12-16) on perspectives related to HPS and school youth engagement. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and data were analysed using inductive 'codebook' thematic analysis. Themes related to a healthy school community were mapped onto the pillars of HPS: (i) Social and Physical Environment, (ii) Teaching and Learning, (iii) Partnerships and Services and (iv) School Policies. Participants placed more importance on the social and physical environment of the school including respect, inclusivity, supportive relationships and the design of spaces. Key factors for youth engagement were: (i) safe and supportive spaces, (ii) passion and interest, (iii) using their voice, (iv) power dynamics, (v) accessibility and (vi) awareness. With recognition that youth engagement is a crucial part of HPS, this work provides relevant and applicable information on areas of the healthy school community that are important to youth, and if/how they are meaningfully engaged in school decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".