MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Looking for a Dream: understanding rural youth life trajectories in Colombia

2024· article· en· W4408470898 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Margarita Fontecha, Silvia Sarapura

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation in Rural Contexts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamPsychologySociologyGeographyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The voice of rural youth in the Global South is still missing from the sustainable development agenda and related academic research. Rural youth are one of the most underrepresented groups. Despite the fact that most of the global south population is young and lives in rural areas. The existing literature on rural youth is largely focused on economic aspects, which considers youth as labour in agricultural production. Few articles consider other aspects that might have a direct influence in rural youths’ decision-making process. This research study provides relevant data on the prevailing conditions that influence decision-making processes in rural areas of Colombia from the perspective of rural youth. In the communities where the research was conducted, legal and illegal economies co-exist. This presentation is based on the results of participatory research to make participants collaborators in the study. To do that the research conducted four photovoice projects and focus groups. The research study evidences that although the macro structures (economic, social) and the regime (community/family) influence the decision-making process, rural youth's self-determination might explain why some individuals choose one life-course or another. A systems-based approach is required to explore and understand rural youth realities in the Global South. Understanding what aspects influence rural youth decision-making processes provides critical information to design and implement age and context-appropriate policies and programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.284 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicEducation in Rural ContextsFrench-language works237,207