A Pilot Study Exploring the Potential of Improv in Strengthening Youth—Adult Partnerships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study qualitatively explored the potential of improv for strengthening youth–adult partnerships. Seven members of a youth-adult research collaborative participated in a 2-hour professionally facilitated improv workshop. Participants provided insights about their experiences through a follow-up qualitative interview questionnaire. Participants indicated that improv assisted in dismantling power differentials that often exist in youth–adult partnership contexts, also noting that improv helped them to express their true selves more readily, along with helping them to see new and more “human” sides to their team members. Participants were enthusiastic about accessing further improv opportunities, noting that improv should be embedded into other youth–adult partnership efforts, as such approaches were deemed particularly helpful in building relationships and trust. The further inclusion of improv activities in youth-serving intervention and prevention efforts would benefit from additional exploration as ways by which youth–adult collaborations might be innovated and strengthened.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it