Examining the Role of a Program for Youth Advocates in Critical Consciousness Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ACLU’s National Advocacy Institute (NAI) is a one-week residential program designed to build youth’s capacities to advocate for civil rights and challenge injustices. This study assessed its role in fostering adolescents’ critical consciousness. We surveyed NAI participants and a comparison group of engaged youth before, one week after (N = 58(NAI)/166(comparison)), and six months after the program (N = 47(NAI)/165(comparison)). Using difference-in-differences analyses with covariates, NAI youth increased their likelihood of taking low- and high-risk political actions after one week and high-risk action frequency after six months, relative to the comparison group. NAI youth increased three forms of critical agency one week and, marginally, six months post-program. No associations were found for critical reflection. As a robustness check, propensity score models mostly replicated results. Findings show the promise of short, intensive programs for sparking growth in critical agency and action and highlight the need for more critical consciousness-raising spaces.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".