MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297804912 · doi:10.4324/9781003149965-31

SExT

2022· book-chapter· en· W4297804912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shira B. Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What critical components are required to successfully engage youth in marginalized communities in meaningful theatre-making that truly represents local youth experience? SExT: Sex Education by Theatre is a youth theatre initiative founded to empower young people from a neighbourhood where talking about sex is a cultural taboo. This participatory action research involved designing, implementing, and evaluating an innovative intervention created in response to rising adolescent sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates and critical education inequities facing immigrant youth in Toronto, Canada. Nineteen peer educators, most with no prior theatre experience, were recruited from the local high school to devise and perform a new play about sexual health for their peers. Over seven years, iterations of the resulting award-winning play have toured nationally to newcomer and Indigenous communities, reaching over 10,000 young people. This chapter introduces SExT as a “by youth for youth” theatre initiative and shares the five mechanisms or pedagogical elements identified through qualitative analysis as responsible for its success: pleasure; creative engagement; personal and community relevance; role-play and embodiment; and vicarious role-play and modelling. The combination of these components proved critical for overcoming individual and structural barriers to youth participation, ensuring authentic youth representation, aesthetic achievement, and community impact.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2720.001

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 head0.820
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.133 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207