Including Rural Youth Perspectives in Sustainable Development and Academic Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing literature on rural youth largely focuses on labour and economic opportunities. Usually, rural youth studies focus on finding the right incentives for youth to have a life-course in farming and food production. However, this approach narrows rural youth aspirations to their economic role and. Few studies explore other factors that influence youth decision-making, such as role models, family networks, community relationships, and social norms—all of which shape their agency and capacity to pursue alternative life trajectories. Moreover, little research includes the perspective, ideas and experience of rural youth in their design. My study uses a participatory photovoice method grounded in Possible Selves theory, agency, and intersectionality to examine the aspirations and life courses of rural youth in La India, Colombia from the perspective of rural youth themselves. Conducted with 36 students aged 13–20, the research engaged participants through photography workshops, discussions, and community activities. The findings reveal a profound tension between youth aspirations and the structural realities of their context, where economic practices and illicit economic systems, coupled with a history of armed conflict, marginalize youth, undermine agency, and limit opportunities for meaningful participation. This context fosters aspirations focused on survival rather than transformative change, reinforcing cycles of poverty and exclusion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".