Engaging and strengthening youth through international community‐based research: Implementation and evaluation of an International Youth Advisory Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth advisory boards are ubiquitous in community-based research, yet there is limited description of their development or direct benefits to participants within international research contexts. This convergent mixed-method study describes and evaluates the design and implementation of a bilingual International Youth Advisory Board (IYAB) of 10 sexual and gender diverse youth (SGDY) aged 15-21 from Canada, the USA, and Mexico. During a 1-year term, youth participated in six virtual meetings, each incorporating an affirming group check in activity, bespoke youth-development workshop requested by participants (e.g., maintaining healthy relationships, managing conflict), and a feedback session to review draft study materials (e.g., recruitment flyers, surveys, and infographics). Participants completed brief quantitative measures at pre- and posttest and reported increased hope, self-esteem, sense of SGD community, self-advocacy skills, access to supportive adults, groupwork skills, and research competence. Qualitative data collected during a focus group in the final meeting were analyzed using inductive content analysis, producing five content categories of growth, diversity, action, connection, and reciprocity. Integrating these findings, three recommendations for implementing an IYAB are described: (1) support youth development and impact, (2) integrate diverse perspectives, and (3) design a transparent feedback loop. Implications for community psychology and community-based participatory research are discussed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".