Advancing and Mobilizing Knowledge about Youth-Initiated Mentoring through Community-Based Participatory Research: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The core purpose of Youth-Initiated Mentoring (YIM) is to adopt a more collaborative approach to mentoring by inviting youth to nominate and select their own mentors. This article performs a scoping review of research on YIM to identify common methodologies and emerging evidence from available studies. Six online research databases were used to identify peer-reviewed academic articles published in English. No date restrictions were applied. In total, nine peer-reviewed articles were identified and reviewed. The main findings from these studies indicate that collaborating with youth during the mentor nomination process offers several benefits to youth in mentoring relationships. Based on the knowledge gained from this scoping review, a secondary purpose of this article is to encourage researchers to adopt a more participatory approach to their future investigations of YIM. Despite YIM’s recent exploration into more collaborative approaches to practice, the model has yet to fully embrace more collaborative approaches to research. To address this limitation, this article begins a productive dialogue between YIM and Community-Based Participatory Research. Specifically, this article reviews four of the principles within Community-Based Participatory Research and surfaces helpful strategies that researchers can use to begin celebrating the local knowledge and expertise of youth and their communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".