Exploring the Associations of Afterschool Science Participation and Friendships with Science Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on previous research that demonstrates the association of youth experiences in afterschool science and higher science identities, this paper presents a network study of 421 middle school students that examines afterschool science participation, friendship ties, and science identities. Participation in afterschool science clubs is associated with higher science identity, but the mechanisms and order of causality are unclear. Youth form friendships inside and outside of school, and peers may influence participation in afterschool activities, as empirical research on friendships shows that they are associated with youth interests. These peer interactions also have the potential to shape identity development during adolescence. In this study, we explore associations among youth participation in afterschool science clubs, peer friendship groups, and science identity. We find that youth who participate in afterschool science clubs have higher science identities than those who do not participate. Additionally, having friends in afterschool science clubs is associated with higher science identity, even among students who report not participating in clubs themselves. Results suggest that afterschool science clubs support youth science identities, even beyond those who directly participate.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".