‘For Youth by Youth’: Distributive Leadership in Action With a Youth Codesign Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrated youth services are an emerging delivery model in Canada that addresses siloed and fragmented youth mental health and other services. Youth engagement is viable for developing integrated youth services when purposefully built. However, it is not always clear how youth are involved in service transformation as decision-makers, and it requires an exploration of how to work with youth authentically and intentionally in the codesign process. METHODS: This study reflects on the development of HOMEBASE, a network of integrated youth service delivery in Saskatchewan, Canada, and documents the process of actively and authentically engaging with youth through distributive leadership in the codesign process. FINDINGS: Youth are actively and eagerly willing to participate in the codesign process of developing integrated services when there is a shared responsibility, and they are authentically involved and informed within the decision-making process. This requires time to form trust, build relationships and provide youth with low-pressure environments to foster healthy debates. CONCLUSION: By utilizing a distributive leadership approach, the Youth Codesign Team has been engaged in various levels of decision-making. By following these guiding principles, policymakers, youth development workers and researchers can engage youth in meaningful ways to improve the design and development of integrated care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Five youths from the HOMEBASE Provincial Youth Co-Design Team collaborated in writing this article based on their experiences of being engaged at varying levels of decision-making in a distributive leadership approach to building integrated youth services.
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 | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".